Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

24

The issue is not that OECs have a "weak faith," but we believe we are taking a more appropriate view of the scripture. Indeed, if the text is written metaphorically (as we believe), then reading it literally is the weaker position. If you don't want to read my rather long (yet still way too short to pay true justice to this topic) answer, I suggest jumping ...


21

Nobody in ancient times could have imagined that the earth was billions of years old, so you won't see any explicit attempts to reconcile the Genesis creation stories with an old earth. However, the early Christians did see discrepancies that made them question how literally the creation stories should be understood. Second century Christian apologist ...


11

I'm very hesitant to answer anything on this as no matter what position I take, it will incite endless debate and comments. However, I believe there is a simple answer that all sides can hold as acceptable truth. The fact is that we all have the same evidence. Whether Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan, YEC, OEC, the evidence never changes. The ...


10

Death through Sin The idea of "death through sin" in Romans 5:12 refers to Genesis 2:17, where God warns Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The NIV translation of Genesis 2:17 is questionable, so I'm offering four other translations, because the wording is important for understanding the passage: but of the tree of the ...


8

I think it's clear that your assumption is wrong, and that figurative interpretations of the Genesis were always common amongst scholarly interpreters, such as for example St. Augustine. At the very least, he thinks that the transgression in the Garden of Eden was in fact of a sexual nature, and therefore the account as it is, is figurative. Further, we are ...


7

There is a idea, known as Gap Theory, that says that the first few verses of Genesis should be translated as the following: Genesis 1:1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth [became]* 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. * ...


6

Since you pinged me on chat about this, I'll do my best to answer... But honestly, I think it's a very poor question. Therefore, I provide two answers: The one I think you're looking for, and what I believe is the proper answer. I think an OEC who uses this verse as a proof text is using it in the sense that to God time measurement is essentially ...


6

The reason that many would discount a literal interpretation (in the sense of a historical reading) of the books of the Bible is more to do with an acknowledgement that they weren't primarily written with intent to convey history, but to teach us something about God's relationship with us. There's a lot of literary study involved in fleshing out all the ...


6

Old Earth Creationism is the belief that the world was created but is contra Young Earth Creationism in terms of age. It does not specify an age, but instead assumes that current scientific dating is at least reasonably accurate. If one does not literally interpret Genesis 1 in terms of days, we have an uncertain time since the creation of the world. If one ...


6

There's going to be some confusion in any answer, because the strictness of interpretation of Genesis (especially 5) is precisely what divides a young earth creationist from an old earth creationist. By definition, the old earth creationist appeals to extra-biblical "evidence," and hence there cannot be a "biblical" old earth creationist stance. The YEC ...


6

I think that "is there Biblical evidence" is a completely different question than "do old earth Christians believe". The Bible gives no mention of human ancestors, and specifically states in the Genesis account that God created Adam and Eve rather than that they evolved from a proto-human ancestor, so the answer to "Is there Biblical Evidence" is "no". To ...


5

For the sake of not getting into an argument, let's assume a genesis / biblical creation, literal/YEC-style. The "trees/rings" thing is pretty much unanswerable, but fortunately we don't even need to know anything about the garden of Eden / Adam, because what we do have is the light from other stars, for which we have good confidence for the distance / ...


5

I'm going to say that he probably couldn't. Naturally, I admit the very real possibility of being wrong. I use Occam's Razor when it comes to determining which scenario is more likely. There are similar questions to "Did the first trees have rings (correlating to actual years of existence)?" Did Adam and Even have navels? It's impossible to say for sure, ...


5

For most issues in Christianity, doctrine is only clearly defined once a heresy (or disagreement) comes up which requires it. For instance, the canonization of the New Testament only happened because people started circulating their own canons which were clearly bad. Historical theologians probably did not think about the age of the Earth in specific ...


4

If the author (e.g., the human author) meant to be writing figuratively, or poetically, or even mythically, then in theological parlance, the figurative, poetic, mythic interpretation is the literal interpretation. In theology, it goes by authorial intent, not by high school literature course canons. E.g., St. Augustine talks about 'ages' instead of days, ...


4

Here's one answer (emphasis added): In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Professor William Henry Green and theologian Benjamin B. Warfield noted gaps and omissions in the Genesis genealogies. This suggested the creation was conceivably older than the 6,000-year timeframe proposed by Ussher and Lightfoot. Today many Bible scholars believe ...


4

Different groups of Christians resolve this in different ways. A young-earth creationist would say the earth isn't really 4.5 billion years old. Adam and Eve were created along with everything else around 6,000 years ago. An old-earth creationist would accept the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, but would deny that humans are descended from another ...


3

Short answer - YES! Long answer - read below :) You will find many science based articles that answer this question at creation.com . I am a recently converted atheist who was unable to reconcile evolution with the bible as a literal account. I believed the evolution account for 40 years. The reason I no longer believe it is because I had an experience ...


3

One thing to keep in mind is that the precise definition is "day" is not a 24 hour period. The precise definition of "day" is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation; to the Jews, a day was the time from when the sun rose to the time it set. It is interesting that, prior to creation, the bible says the "Earth was without form and ...


3

It takes some interpretation as well as synthesis from scientific sources but the biblical narrative roughly follows the evolutionary process. edit: Genesis 1:3-10 describe the initial stages of order coming into place. Day, night, water, land, atmosphere. Vegetation appears next in vv. 11-13. Vegetation would have been the first macro-organism on the ...


2

I have a detailed treatment of this subject on my website. The broad points made in that article are as follows. First, scripture is is clear that the creation in and of itself is sufficient evidence of God's existence that mankind is held eternally accountable on the basis of creation alone: 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because ...


2

What if the Old Earth view was the more literal view? Remember that the ancient Jews who wrote this defined a day based on the sun. When a day started or ended depended on what time the sun sets. This is much earlier in the Winter than in the Summer, for example. With that in mind, the first couple "days" don't make much sense as a 24-hour period at all, as ...


2

My answer is simple: water into wine. What this miracle demonstrated was that God can create something that has, not only the appearance, but the very substance of being aged, even if it has only existed for a mere moment. Another example would be Adam, who, being formed from the dust of the ground, was formed as a mature human, not an infant.


2

As a young Earth creationist I see it this way: God stretched out the heavens like a curtain on Day 4 (Isaiah 42:5) causing time dilation; generating billions of years' worth of starlight into the heavens in 24 hours of Earth time; to establish a clock that could run forever and be seen from the Earth from the beginning.(Genesis 1:14) God caused a ...


2

If we go back to the earliest Christian teachers we will find a substantial focus on metaphorical and spiritual meanings of the Bible, more than maybe a modern Christian might expect. Roger Forster and Paul Marston write in "Reason and Faith" (Monarch, 1989): In [the Church Fathers] there was, compared with today, a much greater emphasis on allegorical ...


1

The Wikipedia article on Young Earth Creationism gives a good explanation of it's origins, decline, and revival. Regarding the age of the earth, it cites Seder Olam Rabbah from 160 AD: The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world ...


1

I'd encourage you to give a listen to William Lane Craigs 'Defenders' podcast series on Creation and Evolution, specifically episode 14 which touches on this (but the prior 13 episodes provide background info). This is probably the most erudite, methodical, and approachable analysis that I've ever come across on this subject. There are several issues ...


1

I think, quite simply, old Earth creationists are trying to reconcile a belief in the Bible with evolutionary theory. It is difficult to see how anyone could read Genesis without any previously conceived ideas and conclude that the Earth is billions of years old. The plain, literal meaning is that the Earth was created in six 24-hour days several thousand ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible