25

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 ...


20

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 ...


16

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 ...


16

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 ...


15

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 ...


15

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 ...


15

Creationists who believe the flood was a real global event say the water is still here, in the earth's oceans. The oceans are much deeper than the mountains of earth are high, and they cover a much greater proportion of the earth's surface. Some have estimated that if the earth's surface was flattened the oceans' waters would cover the land to a depth of 2....


14

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, ...


14

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 ...


13

As others noted, icr.org and answersingenesis.com have numerous articles on the subject. The argument is usually boiled down into the following points: 1) Accurate radioactive dating assumes that the decay rate of a radioactive material has not changed over time and is the same today as long in the past. 2) Dating of objects less than about 50,000 years ...


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 ...


12

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.


12

Young-Earth Creationists tend to agree that the Ice Age(s*) occurred after the Great Flood, but they have a variety of proposed explanations that seek to reconcile the Biblical record and artifactual evidence. From Answer in Genesis's article When Was the Ice Age in Biblical History?: Editor’s note: Biblical creationists have not reached a consensus on ...


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. http://www.answersingenesis.org/...


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 ...


11

Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, two young-earth creationist organizations, have similar answers to this question. They don't attribute a direct supernatural cause, but instead attribute the age drop-off primarily to genetics. Both cite several factors: Environmental changes following the flood: probably nothing more than a minor ...


10

Basically there are three ways that genetic diversity happens: Mutation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation Sexual combination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Sex_and_recombination Gene Flow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Gene_flow All of these processes do in fact have the potential of generating new genetic information. ...


10

Scientifically speaking, evolution is not required for variations within a species. The only requirement is that all of the genetic information seen in the species today was present in the first generation. From then on, species experience the isolation of genes through geographic and other factors. The breeding of new species of dogs does not produce new ...


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

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 ...


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). ...


9

I'm Amish -- sort of.* You are correct that there is a lot of variation within the Amish tradition (and even more if you include Mennonites, another branch of the Anabaptist heritage), so I can't speak for all. However, I think I'd be fairly safe to say that many, if not most, of us believe generally in a young earth and a literal six-day creation. ...


8

Most adherents to the literal young-earth seven-day creation account believe that when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, God applied the curse to the entire universe, including animals. Animals didn't need to eat the fruit to be affected by the curse. From the YEC view, whether animals ate the fruit is irrelevant because they weren't made "in God's image" ...


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 ...


8

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 ...


7

The Issue is the Authority of Scripture and How We Should Read It Not all YEC think alike, but some of the most compelling arguments I've heard regarding this have to do with why it's desirable to someone to make the account metaphorical. If one is just trying to make the Biblical account harmonize with the latest naturalistic theories concerning the age of ...


7

The explanation is quite simple. They had the same teeth, but they ate plants. Whether they struggled to eat plants is another question and mostly opinion based. Generally, Young Earth Creationists when challenged with this point, will note that there are examples of animals with carnivorous teeth, yet they are herbivorous. The most common example is the ...


7

Here's what Ken Ham had to say regarding the news of this discovery: No scientist witnessed the origin of man, and evolutionary scientists only believe there were intermediate evolutionary links between an ape-like ancestor and man because they have disregarded God’s Word and substituted their own fallible opinions in its place ... The ...


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