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

OK, let me let you into the secret of the particular debating strategy I am employing in this thread. It's called "showing the internal inconsistencies of the opposition's position". As part of that, I am stipulating, for the purposes of the discussion, that all of the details of your position are as you have stated them. So far that reason, there's no point at all in continuing to hammer on the 'yom is a literal day' issue: I've stipulated it.

So, assuming that everything you have said about the 6 literal days of creation is the case, is Biblically supported and so on...

Where are the Biblical grounds, within that system, for believing the stars are much older. You need to leave aside scientific grounds, because your claim is that the Bible trumps science every time, or if science appears to contradict the literal Biblical account then so much the worse for science.

So, based purely on the text itself, and your very strong and repeated argument that a day is a day is a day, where is the evidence, without interpretation, that removes the stars from among the other things made on Day Four?

Your 'two great lights, not two zillion' argument does not hold water. For about the past 200 years or less we have known that the stars are in fact 'great lights', but for the vast majority of human history that was not known, and from a human perspective the sun and moon are great lights and the stars are not. The creation account says that on that day God made the sun and the moon, and 'he also made the stars'. In any normal conversation, when something is said in the same sentence, we don't go hunting and assume that the writer meant 'a billion years ago'.

If I say to my wife: 'Today I went shopping. I bought a book and a CD, and I also bought a motorbike', she is not going to say "Ah, I see, you bought a book and a CD today and a motorbike a year ago".

So, within the terms of your own system and your own claims, and without recourse to scientific knowledge about the age of the universe, how do you justify this very odd situation where the whole of Genesis 1 takes place 6000-odd years ago, except for one tiny clause?

Not true with Adventists. Most Adventists go there because Ellen White tells us life existed in the universe on other planets before the Earth was created.

The stars could have been created on the fourth day. The light from the stars could have reach Earth in a few thousand years if light traveled faster in the past or if time on Earth travels slower than other parts of the universe. However if the stars were created on the fourth day that would contradict what Ellen White has written. Thus Adventists tend to believe in an old universe due to the Spirit of Prophecy and not scientific concerns.

Hold on a minute, EGW was not a scientist, was not considered a scientist by anyone. To say one believes in such because of her, puts them at odds with putting the Bible first.

I believe in an old universe because of the evidence, not for any other reason. I do not believe SDA's use EGW as the authority for the age of the universe. To use the above statement as characterizing SDA beliefs about the universe is scary!!

Adventists generally and as a church believe that the Bible supports what Ellen White says about creation and the age of the world. They don't see a contradiction there.

Have you ever sat in on a meeting at an SDA university and heard the faculty discuss these issues? It is very obvious that they have to consider the statements by Ellen White and the beliefs of the church regarding the creation of the world and the length of its existence.

...and in a situation like this, where she seems to contradict the Bible?

I do not believe the study of Origins should be a scientific discipline. I believe it should be a philosophical discipline. Any attempt to study origins within the realm of science can only be considered pseudo-science. Science is observable, measurable and repeatable. Thus (now follow this close) Ellen White doesn't have to be a scientist to be part of a discussion about origins. Her writings have a profound impact on Adventist philosophy.

Many things she writes are not confirmed by the Bible but do not contradict the Bible either. If something she wrote contradicts the Bible and a person chooses to believe her rather than the Bible, then that person is indeed placing Ellen White before the Bible. That is not the case with the creation of the universe. The Bible does not confirm that the universe is old but does not tell us the universe was created at the same time as the Earth either.

As has already been discussed in this thread, the language in Genesis allows for an understanding of an ancient universe. One doesn't have to read the passage subjectively to get there.

Dancing, I'm sorry, Shane, absolute dancing. To claim that the whole chapter is at the time of the creation except that one tiny phrase is to do huge violence to language - ironic on the part of those who claim to take the Word literally.

Well, I am one of the few Adventists that enjoys dancing, especially with my wife in the kitchen

The position articulated here is the position taken by GSRI and has been for years. People that don't agree with it can call it what they want but it is pretty much accepted in Adventist circles.

I'm with you on that one, Shane. I like to dance too. I can't see a thing wrong with dancing with your wife. I have even gone out to a live-music place for dancing with my wife. I wouldn't get into the habit but I didn't feel it was wrong. We had a good time and it was nice to get out and be romantic like that.

Well, I'll just call it unbiblical (for literalists) and leave it at that.

Oh yeah, and I like to dance with my wife too. I'm less of a fan of dancing when my students do it rhetorically to avoid the fact that their position is inconsistent, though.

Yes, and imagine if it's wrong.

I've heard you talk about teaching before and I am sure it's a science, but which one or ones?

I was a high school chemistry and physics teacher (who sometimes got dragooned into teaching maths too). I am now a teacher educator, so I teach physics teachers for secondary schools and a science teaching course for middle school teachers (who will teach every subject). I'm actually also in the process of signing up to study a bit more physics myself, just to keep the old brain sharp...

Yet, the GSRI disagrees with that opinion and they are supported by many Biblical scholars with PhDs in ancient Hebrew.

And what does that lead too? He says, she says! Opinions! Thats all! Start a thread or section on the philosophy of creation, thats okay.

I am always amazed why people down through the centuries have this distrust of science when it disagrees with their own set of theories. Science is okay to use and exam when it doesn't threaten us. If our beliefs feel threatened and we are uncomfortable with examining them, what does that say about our beliefs?

We can always ask the moderator if they will allow a separate area for philosophical discussions, but keep it separate! I am more interested in the science of creation. Go Super Collider!!

This is not a science forum. Just read the title. It is an "Origins" forum. Some people think that means science. I don't. I think that means philosophy.

Science is observable, repeatable and measurable. We can't go back in time to observe creation or the big bang. We can't repeat it and we obviously we can't measure it. We can look at evidence that we have today (which is a snap shot in time) and theorize about how things use to be and what happened. That is pseudo-science. It is not the hard science that gave us pasteurized milk, electric light, a cure for polio or sent us to the moon.

Shane, it's fairly common for people to refer to anything related to creationism as "origins" or "theory of origins" or "origins science." Of course scientists are interested in how it all began, and while we'll never be able to go back to the beginning to watch, over time we'll know more than we did before.

Saying this forum isn't about science because it's called "Origins" is a bit silly, don't you think? We are surrounded by the natural world, and if that doesn't lead to scientific thinking, I don't know what does.

I think that rainbows are beautiful; flying in a plane is a miracle, every single time; mountains are awesome to climb and to behold; and don't get me started on the amazing worlds in the oceans. Scientists and naturalists and inventors—people, they are, like you and me—figured out how rainbows work; how planes fly; how mountains were made; and the ocean is a vast testament to what we still don't know. It seems like we ought to be able to wonder and to question and to learn without having our faith threatened by what we learn.

It's safe to believe that Genesis is meant to be read literally. It's crazy and dangerous and exhilarating and life-affirming to learn that there's so much more.

Great post, Vera: and everyone else, please read Vera's post and inwardly digest, rather than just respond to mine.

Is forensic science science? We can't murder the person again in the lab, but from the evidence left behind we can figure out what happened: in some cases with enough certainty to put someone to death.

Is the science of studying air crash sites science? Same thing - it's a study of the evidence left behind by an event, and it's not necessary to replicate the event in order to understand it.

Using a particular very narrow definition of science, that does not fit with the actual nature and philosophy of science, to decide that science has nothing to say about origins is not a particularly strong philosophical move.

But we also seem to have gone astray. The initial question *in this thread* was not at all a scientific one, it was a Biblical interpretation one.

And what the poll shows is that Young Earth Creationists are evenly split between believing this planet is 6000 years old and billions of years old, but they all believe the universe is old, even though arriving at that conclusion requires considerable interpretive contortion...

Mind you, so does deciding the earth is old. As has been repeatedly quoted at me from Exodus 20: "11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

I guess 'the heavens' doesn't mean 'the heavens' here, hmm?

It is not valid to equivocate between exegetically strong textual evidence for universe-before-life-one-earth such as

"The earth WAS without form and void and water covered the surface of the deep"

On Day four "God made TWO GREAT LIGHTS" not a-zillion-and-two

Vs -- SIX Days does not mean Six days no matter what the Bible says

(For which I have no text to support the myth)

Using Exegesis instead of eisegesis -- we get in Genesis 1 that "heavens" is a reference to the place where water is (where clouds are) on day 2 and where birds fly on day 5.

Using the most extreme reasoning the best you get is the day 4 place (our solar system) where God places the Sun and moon as the two GREAT LIGHTS.

But as Paul points out -- the Bible concept is that there are THREE heavens.

in Ex 20 we have vs 9-10 "SIX DAYS you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE...".

1. ALL Bible scholars who look at the ENTIRE commandment vs 8-11 AGREE that this is a reference to creation week's timline given in Gen 1-2:3.

2. ALL Bible scholars agree that "SIX DAYS you shall labor" means SIX DAYS -- really.

3. ALL Bible scholars agree that "SIX days you shall labor ... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" is an argument for action that gives a REASON - based on the actions of God Himself and the authority He is claiming by His own action as He adds "THEREFORE the Lord BLESSED".

4. All Bible scholars agree that Moses was not some kind of avant guard Darwinist trying to teach Darwinism to the newly released slaves from Egypt.

So far nobody on any of these threads has shown a single Bible scholar trying to bend the text in favor of Darwinism that has done so using the ENTIRE text of the 4th commandment linked to the days of Genesis 1.

5. The formula "evening and mornig where the (ordinal number goes here) day" is framed so that we have the term "evening and morning" assigned an ordinal number. (Obviously). There is NO such formulation in all of scripture for which the clear rendering is NOT -- a real day (as in SIX DAYS you shall labor).


in Christ,

Bob

You're continuing to hammer on a point I've already conceded while ignoring the point I'm actually making.

Not at all. Especially on on a Christian website. An origins forum on a Christian website is much more likely to be about theology than science.

I disagree. We can make educated guesses about what happened. And in this example we can easily cite cases where forensics got it wrong. And yet they were taking guesses about events that occurred in the recent past. Those studying origins are taking guesses about things they estimate happened millions or billions of years ago. That can hardly be considered a hard science.

Why shouldn't it include science?

Amen there is so much more..there are more details in creation, in intelligent design in the amazing aspects of this universe that point to a creator. However, evidence that doesn't point to a creator or that disagrees with the Bible is not exhilerating or life-affirming at least not to a Christian that believes in Biblical account of creation.

I pointed out that on day four God says that He made TWO great lights not "a zillion and two" (and of course exegesis demands that we account for that detail in the text itself) and I point out that Paul argues for THREE HEAVENs not just one.

What part of your point did I miss?

in Christ,

Bob

No, I imagine you're right. I'll settle for confusing and troubling.

Well, I am one who has voted that “Earth and the rest of the universe were created miraculously by God in the far past, but life on earth was created 6-10,000 years ago”, because I believe that it is the only answer that that is logical. I believe that this answer brings together, as much as possible, the Biblical account, and what true scientists have found. Let me explain:-

We know that the Godhead have been around forever—God has no beginning and no ending – He is the God “Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8), and so, as I have thought more and more on this issue, I have no trouble in believing in the “Big Bang” theory of the beginning of the universe – and that could be millions, trillions, zillions of years ago – way back in the endless ages of eternity – and there is no ending of our universe either!

Another reason for believing this, comes from the writings of Ellen White, where she tells of being taken in vision to some of the other worlds where sin does not exist – worlds that had been around a long time before the creation of Adam and Eve, worlds that had not yielded to Satan’s temptations.

So, the scientists who date the earth millions, billions, and trillions of years old could well have been conservative!! Who knows?

Another reason for thinking that the universe creation was a “Big Bang” is because of the way the planets, stars, etc, all remain in their places, because of the pull of gravity.
To add in another planet here, and another planet there would mean rearranging the gravitational arrangements. Why not do it all at once, and allow the planets to just sit there and await their turn to be made into places of beauty! As for the stars, I certainly believe that they could have been here before, made during the "Big Bang".

So, there is no reason to try and stretch the Biblical 6-day creation week into thousands of years just to account for the old rocks – they have been accounted for. We can take the Bible for what it is – the unfailing Word of God!

God bless,

Beryl

75% - Dark Energy (which means I-don't-know-what fudge-factor energy)
25% - Dark Matter (fudge-factor Matter)
5% - matter (yep! see it -- and account for it's gravitational effects)

That is the mass-energy composition of what we see in space. Which hardly makes us know-it-all's on that topic.

God as it turns out - is still the only one who knows how to make it - and many are not satisfied with what He says He did in making life on this earth 6,000 years ago.

in Christ,

Bob

Which brings us to the subject of exegesis vs the blatan eisegesis that would simply bend scripture to what ever prior-agenda one might have.

Surely no one argues that Moses was a Darwinist or that the way to teach Darwinism is "SIX days you shall labor .... for in SIX DAYS the Lord made...".

(I think we finally have agreement on that point!)

in Christ,

Bob

excellent post Beryl. I agree with it.

pk

No-one but you has ever even addressed this 'Moses was a Darwinist' notion, Bob, which is unsurprising since it is nonsensical on its face. It doesn't go anywhere near characterising any position or argument that I have made here.

If that is your way of admitting that Moses was not preaching Darwinism - then we can take the step of admitting that the Ex 20:8-11 text of Moses is in complete harmony with the Gen 1-2:3 text of Moses.

My arguments are always that "bible bending" is not an option for coming up with a Bible that satisfies the requirements of Darwinism. Much better just to let the gap be what it is in that regard.

Darwin saw the gap and left Christianity choosing to persue instead "stories easy enough to make up - but they are not science" (To quote Collin Patterson).

So also did Meyers and Dawkins choose that path.

in Christ,

Bob