Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

35

If you accept that God could create the universe out of nothing and create it any way He desired, then the explanation of God creating the universe with photons in flight has to be taken as a possiblity. I realize you have discounted it as deceptive and therefore unacceptable, but consider the following... When God created trees, did He create only seeds ...


24

It should be clear from the answers so far that, while there are many creationist theories about distant starlight, there is no one widely held "answer". This is ok if you treat young-earth creationism like science. Open questions and competing theories are what science is about! It's even ok to say "we don't know right now" - in fact that is better than ...


20

Again... This is not about the validity of the YEC view. The point of this is not to reveal "Truth", the point is to accurately explain the doctrinal significance of the view, from the perspective of those who believe the view, so that we have it on record on site. The answer is quite simple, actually, and laid out very well on the Answers in Genesis ...


19

An extremely simple argument for this sense is to consider the following two questions: Q1. Does the epistle of Romans assume and rely on an essentially literal* interpretation of the fall of man (cf. Genesis 1-3)? Q2. How foundational is the epistle of Romans to a Christian understanding of the gospel? It may be possible to argue these points to a ...


17

There are two main theories creationists used to explain it: In 1857 Philip Goose wrote the book Omphalos which proposes the omphalos hypothesis and argues, that God must have created the earth as it is today, with mountains, canyons, tree rings, and thus with the light of stars. This theory, of course, raises the question of when the "false history" ...


15

The short version is that there are many places in the Bible that quote/reference the creation account in the book of Genesis literally (Exodus 16:16, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, Leviticus 23:3, Deuteronomy 5:13, Luke 13:14, etc). The most obvious is the "reasoning" given for the 4th Commandment: Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the ...


14

No. The age of the earth is not clearly stated in the Bible. However, according to young-earth creationists (like myself), it can be derived, assuming that the word "Day" in Genesis means a literal day, and that the genealogies are accurate. Adding up the genealogies can give an age of about 6,000 years, but there are some gaps in the genealogies, and ...


13

Here's a video series to address the issue: http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/distant-starlight AIG, is young earth and they have lots of resources to check out. I would agree with Jim in saying it's possible for God to create stuff with age. It sounds like you don't like that in the 3rd point of your question, since it makes God look ...


13

The notion that all viruses are bad is worth challenging. In 2008 paediatrician Dr Lawrence D. Rosen, MD published a blog post entitled Viruses and Health: Not all bad? which looked at two interesting cases and concluded: In both of these cases, it appears that viral infections may indeed confer some sort of protection or health benefit to the host. ...


13

If these "historical records" could be trusted as absolute truth then this would be a problem for Young Earth Creationists. However, ask any ancient historian and they will tell you that there has been some major corruption in the so-called "historical records" of ancient cultures. This is due in part to the "age wars" which took place between various ...


13

Rephrasing what you said slightly more succinctly- it isn't about history, it's about trustworthiness. Creationists see all theories that attempt to explain origins as inherently matters of faith. One either trusts that matter could have somehow been there, packed so densely together that it caused a universe creating explosion, and then developed strictly ...


13

Based on the wording of your question, I assume you want a literalist/young earth creationist perspective. This isn't the only perspective in Christianity. Plenty believe in evolution, or one form of Old Earth Creationism or another. The last portion of this answer, on particular, will likely be jumped on by the OEC and Evolutionist crowds, as it's ...


12

There is nothing in the Bible that pins down the date. Just to give an alternative view to the speculation that exists in YEC (the existing answer), the (Roman) Catholic church has an official position that is in acceptance of the scientific age of about 4.5 billion years. I won't bother copying it all, but see Wikipedia under the heading "Pope Benedict XVI ...


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 ...


11

@El'endia Starman's comment is correct. One of the common assumptions of the young-earth position is that the dating methods that give us billions or millions of years of history are flawed. I could give hundreds links to support the statement that this is a well-accepted assumption among YEC-ists, but I'll limit myself. ...


11

It is always better to admit you don't know than to make something up, especially when it comes to speaking about God! The idea that God fills in the gaps of our knowledge with his miracle super powers is called the 'God of the Gaps.' It has the problem of making God look like he decreases while our knowledge increases. It also does not adequately account ...


10

Lining up dates from ancient documents and inscriptions is not an easy thing to do. You don't find ancient records that say, "Our nation was established on June 12, 3462 BC", for the simple reason that our modern calendar did not exist back then. So even when an ancient source gives a date, it is in the calendar they used at the time, and historians have to ...


10

There is no reason to limit information about the creation week to Genesis, but... 1) There are a number of good reasons to limit information about the creation week to Scripture. For instance, philosophically, the word of God is truth, and all men are corrupt and limited, which makes the revealed word of God the only reliable source for truth. 2) There is ...


9

In support of the idea that it did not rain is the very next verse: Genesis 2:6 But a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. No further mention is made of rain until the Flood account. Anything beyond this is conjecture on our part.


9

This article on the Answers In Genesis website is a good introduction: https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/did-death-of-any-kind-exist-before-the-fall/ One short quote: The Bible never uses the Hebrew term nephesh chayyah (living soul/creature) when referring to invertebrates, but it does when referring to humans and fish (Genesis 1:20; 2:7). ...


8

Young Earth Creationism, abbreviated YEC, is the idea that the earth is relatively young (several thousand years old) compared to Old Earth Creationism (OEC) which agree with secular science that currently claims the earth is 4.55 Billion years old. While there is a lot of good physical evidence for YEC discussed elsewhere the question at hand is what is ...


8

No textual reason for interpreting Genesis figuratively Whenever we ask why we should take something in the Bible as literal, we must start by asking ask why we should not take it as literal. Does the text give us any reason to interpret it as being figurative? In the book of Revelation, and other places where mortal man is given a glimpse of eternity, ...


8

Note that none of this is to say that there weren't also evolutionary views in ancient times. There were. And that this isn't about whether the YEC view is true, it's about whether it was a belief that existed, as the primary belief among Christians (and in Judaism), long before the modern scientific views of origins. I'd also like to point out that my ...


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

Like Young Earth Creationists do with most things, they believe that the conventional dating systems are wrong. In the case of Egypt this involves saying that what are normally thought to be sequential dynasties are actually concurrent dynasties. The most extreme accounts propose that the First and Second Intermediate Periods are actually one period, a time ...


6

The following is taken from a wonderful book called Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin R. Wilson. It explains that an understanding of early Jewish culture helps to understand how they understood scripture. With this understanding, some scripture takes on a different meaning than we would expect today. Just as some phrases we ...


6

The historical answer to this question has been that Noah's three sons - Shem, Ham, and Japeth - represent the three major races - the Whites, the Blacks, and the Asians. Here, for example, is a reference showing this understanding. Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth also made reference to this common myth that Noah's son's were the progenitors of the ...


6

Clarence Larkin's chart on the table of nations suggests that Noah himself, after the flood, was the father of the Asian races. His lifespan happens to date back 5 millenia. So, it certainly would be possible that the Chinese date back five millenia. The fact that their language changed at the Tower of Babel does not mean that all history was lost at ...


6

Short answer: We do need to look at all verses describing creation. But we need to know when creation 'the process' is being talked about and when creation as in 'the physical universe' is being talked about. I encourage you to search the scripture for the phrase "since the beginning of creation" and you will always find human observers being talked about. ...


6

Creationism is built on the assumption that there is a God, and the assumption that this God is the God described in the Bible. If you don't believe either of these things are true, then you cannot logically believe creation science. However, if you believe that both these things are true, then creation science becomes a logical possibility (although not ...



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