There is actually quite a lot of variation in the positions of those who identify themselves as Young Earth Creationists. This poll is just intended to get a sense of the range of positions, but the discussion may well then move on to the biblical and scientific bases for the different views.

So far, of the respondents, no-one believes that the entire universe was created 6000 years ago, although that's what a literal reading of the text says on its face. 1/3 believes the earth is old and 2/3 believe the earth is young.

Good thing that the literal reading is so clear and simple that everyone of goodwill reads it the same way...

The Bible says that on DAY FOUR - God created "TWO great Lights" -- you are arguing that the bible says he created "a zillion and two" great lights on day four.

We differ.

in Christ,

Bob

Some non-SDA YEC groups argue that the entire universe was created in the six days of Gen 1-2:3. I don't know of any SDAs that teach that.

ALL YEC groups teach that God craeted all life on earth in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago.

Beyond that - there are some variations.

I recently found out about a 1994 survey done among SDA collegate science teachers on the issue of 6-day literal creation of life on earth.

I also found out about a 2002 and 2004 study group of SDA science teachers, Bible scholars and church admin people meeting to discuss the topic.

The problem in the SDA church is that a number of people were trained by atheist darwinist institutions and then brought in to teach SDA students. Rather than keeping up with the junk-science fraud history of Darwinism and the non-science arguments at it's core - that even their own atheist darwinists admit to -- many of these teachers simply know the "orthodoxy" of the atheist darwinist religionist proposals accepted without objective critical review.

in Christ,

Bob

The Bible says on Day Four 'he also made the stars'. People try to wiggle out of that by saying "It doesn't say 'on the same day'", but those words fall within the same evening-morning period.

My point is simply that even those who claim to take the Bible's account literally (a) don't and (b) differ.

And your anti-darwinist rant is simply off topic in this thread.

I can understand your point here that it appears literalists are not willing to take Gen. 1: 16 literally as far as the creation the stars are concerned. The mention of the creation of the stars may be understood literally but the reference itself may seen as an afterthought, which the original does seem to indicate. Understanding it that way is not a failure to take it literally but is rather the acceptance of the text as an indication that the narrator is saying "Oh, by the way, He also made the stars." Therefore it can be seen as a matter of textual and linguistic analysis and not of whether God literally made the stars.

True, but I don't think the question is about *whether* God made the stars, but *when*. I'm simply saying that on the face of the text as it appears, and as creationists are continually hammering, the evening and morning period is a single literal day, and these words about the stars fall within one of those periods. Since so much effort has been put into requiring that everything happening in those periods happened in those 6 literal days, it then requires quite a bit of chutzpah - and presumably some fairly serious exegesis - to claim that one single phrase, out of the whole chapter, happened billions of years earlier.

...and the point is, they only go there due to scientific considerations.

Update - more respondents, and now we have a 50/50 tie on an old earth and a young earth, but still an old universe for everyone.

My solution is to point to "more details" not less when doing exegesis. In the text says on day four "he made TWO GREAT LIGHTS" - this detail (typically left out by some) is the key to the fact that on day four TWO great lights were made - not a zillion-and-two.

In other words the MORE details that we accept and believe in Gen 1-2:3 the MORE accurate we find the text to be!

1. Evening and morning were the FIRST day -- were the SECOND day... etc -- there is no formulation of that in any part of scripture where evening and morning are NOT a real "yom" - a day. No not even one!

2. God summarized the event himself in LEGAL code - not poetry -- "SIX DAYS you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE" Ex 20:8-11.

3. EVen in Gen 2:1-3



The term "the seventh day" never means "the seventh millennium" never means "the seventh AGE" never means "the seventh billion years of time" -- no not once in all of scripture.

Exegesis is the key.

And if you think about it -- it is a much better way to go -- just let the Bible say what it does and let the chips fall where they may. Exegesis is concerned with what the Bible actually says - and the original intent of the Author - it does not care at all about how to fit that into other ideas.

Step 1 - render the text accurately.

Facts:

1. Day 4 insists that on day four God "MADE TWO great lights".

2. The text for day 4 also identifies God as the creator of the stars but does not force the conclusion that they were made on day 4 (in fact appears to argue against it).

3. The text does not say the stars were made 10 days, 10 years or 10 billion years prior to day 4 -- the text does not address the point.

4. There is NO formulation of "Evening and morning were the "ordinal value" day" that means anything other than literal day -- no not one in all of scripture.

5. The culture that grew up around that language - Hebrew - STILL used the same numbering of the days - for days of the week -- thousands of years later.


Modern attemps to bend the text to comply with Darwinist doctrine are not even remotely empolying exegesis - they start with an external extra-biblical agenda and try to eisegete INTO the text a meaning that is more compatible with Darwinism as if this is a benefit to either - but in fact it does disservice to both.

in Christ,

Bob