I grew up in an ultra-conservative Christian family, and always believed in young earth creation. But over the years, as I began hearing about almost-irrefutable evidence related to the age of the earth (on PBS/NOVA, etc.), I gradually shifted to an old earth creation perspective because of:

- the fact that what we see in the night sky is starlight from stars that are billions of light years away (light that apparently took billions of years to reach the earth); and

- the fact that even when we attempt to say the earth was created 'with the appearance of age,' there still seems to be indisputable evidence that the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years - especially when scientists from a variety of fields come up with the same time period for specific events, like super-volcano activity in one area 75,000 years ago (among many other examples).

In the last year or two, I think I finally 'accepted' the GAP theory (that there is a gap between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1 - between the creation of the universe and the creation of man).

But then there's the fact that there also seems to be almost-indisputable evidence that animals and human-like creatures lived many thousands, if not millions, of years ago.

I have no idea how to reconcile any of this with the Book of Genesis.

Young earth creation now seems almost as ridiculous to me as evolution.

And old earth creation seems to lead to a belief that life existed on earth - and was later destroyed - before the Genesis account of creation ever took place.

Hugh Ross says there was 'progressive creation' over millions of years - I guess this is one version of the day-age theory that seems to be growing more popular among Christians. But personally, I can't see how this theory makes any real sense biblically.

I was wondering HOW OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE WRESTLED WITH THESE ISSUES HAVE COME TO RECONCILE THE FACTS OF SCIENCE WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.

ALL THE THEORIES I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEM TO BE UNREALISTIC... AND I CAN NOW SEE HOW SCIENCE-MINDED ATHEISTS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM BELIEVING IN A BIBLE THAT (CONTRARY TO WHAT I ALWAYS BELIEVED) REALLY DOES * 'SEEM TO BE' * AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE...

Do your self a favour and read up on the "Framework Hypothesis". An understanding of the social background of Israel in general and of Genesis in particular wouldn't hurt much either.

I think it is extremely important to recover the intent of the text's instruction rather than attempting to impose a particular (exceptionally modern) viewpoint.

Originally posted by mpb1

I was wondering HOW OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE WRESTLED WITH THESE ISSUES HAVE COME TO RECONCILE THE FACTS OF SCIENCE WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.

ALL THE THEORIES I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEM TO BE UNREALISTIC... AND I CAN NOW SEE HOW SCIENCE-MINDED ATHEISTS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM BELIEVING IN A BIBLE THAT (CONTRARY TO WHAT I ALWAYS BELIEVED) REALLY DOES * 'SEEM TO BE' * AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE...

I was a theistic evolutionist for most of my life. I suppose that my venture into YEC (which is where I stand today) began with discussing evolution with my best friend (who is now deceased) back when we were in high school. I was not saved at the time (I thought that I was, but I hadn't repented) and my view of Scripture was actually pretty low.

In chemistry class my sophomore year, I had to do a report on a scientist and I stumbled across Dr. Patrick Young of the Young Earth Creation Club. This began to really make me start thinking differently about evolution, but I still went on believing it. Senior year on the last day of high school is when my best friend died. I went through about seven or eight months of a radical spiritual journey during which I was truly saved.

In time I stumbled across Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and a documentary titled A Question of Origins. Said documentary also led me to Understand the Times, International.

It took a while, but I finally realized that evolution and the Bible simply are not compatible. While I do believe in YEC, I am willing to admit the possibility of OEC. However, in any and all cases, I absolutely reject the notion of any human death before the fall.

Hi NJon,

(I saw your photo on a few other posts and thought you were still in high school :) I guess it's an old photo. ...Not trying to insult you - I just thought the photo was a little homorous.)

Anyway, about there not being any death before the fall, I too believed that. But how many ancient bones do they have to dig up before we finally admit these suckers are a lot older than we'd like to believe? :)

Originally posted by Xavier

I think it is extremely important to recover the intent of the text's instruction rather than attempting to impose a particular (exceptionally modern) viewpoint.

I agree!

Originally posted by mpb1

Hi NJon,

(I saw your photo on a few other posts and thought you were still in high school :) I guess it's an old photo. ...Not trying to insult you - I just thought the photo was a little homorous.)

No, I haven't been for quite a while now. I'll be a junior in college as of December.

Originally posted by Jane

I agree!

Wonders never cease...

Regarding the "Framework Hypothesis," I found a page on it here:
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html

At first glance, it appears to be the equivalent of where I WAS for so many years myself, basically sticking my head in the sand...

I CAN'T SEE WHY WE SHOULDN'T ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THE BIBLE WITH SCIENCE - especially if we want to be taken seriously by an unbelieving world.

As far as evangelism, if we simply say, "Believe this ancient book because it changed my life - even though science has already proven the Creation account to be completely false," we won't get very far.

Here's an excerpt from the page I found on the "Framework Hypothesis" link listed above (by Herman Hanko) http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html :

"Creation is a Matter of Faith

...That all brings up one final point.

We do not attempt to prove creationism from science. We must not attempt to do this. I am not saying that true science contradicts the creation narrative. It does not. But the battle lines are not drawn between competing and contradictory interpretations of creation, It is not a question of who does the best science. The issue is far more profound than that. The question is simply this: Do you believe the word of God or don’t you? The battle is between faith and unbelief. It is unbelief to construct a view of the origin of the creation which conflicts with the literal meaning of Genesis 1. It is unbelief to take Christ’s book and say to Christ, “There are some things that didn’t happen the way you said they happened, because science says that it is impossible for creation to happen that way.

Hebrews 11:3 puts the entire battle where it must be fought. How is it possible to confess the truths of creation as given in Scripture? The only way is the way of faith. Unbelief will always seek to destroy the truth of God — also the truth of creation. But faith alone is able to confess the doctrine of creation, namely, that God formed all things in six days of twenty-four hours. How do we know that by the Word of the Lord the heavens were framed and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth (Psalm 33:6)? How do we know that God is the One who calls the things that were not as though they were (Rom. 4:17)? How do we know that any form of evolutionism, which teaches that things which are seen came from things which do appear, is heresy? How do we know that God formed all things in six days of 24 hours, limited by morning and evening? The only way is faith. “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3). Faith is the only way. Saving faith. Faith which confesses that salvation is in Christ alone. Faith which, laying hold on Christ, receives Scripture as Christ’s Word.

If the whole world believes in evolutionism, and the church meekly follows the world, the believer who clings to Christ by faith and finds in Christ the fullness of his salvation, who glories in the hope of being with Christ forever and ever world without end, maintains, even in the fires of persecution, the simple yet profoundly glorious truth of the doctrine of creation."

It's not about sticking our heads in the sand, but respecting the Scriptures enough to allow them to speak for themselves and to the issues that they were penned to address.

From your cited source:

Ibid.

The men who defend the Framework Hypothesis do not want Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 to be taken literally. I consider that idea, apart from the difficulty in understanding the Framework Hypothesis, to be a deliberate and calculated assault on the sacred Scriptures.

SOURCE: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html

---

© source where applicable

This is that enforcing of a modern context over the intentions of Scripture. This shows NO regard for the Scriptures at all, because it doesn't seek to understand them in their proper context. This article is about forcing one opinion into the text at the determent to other opinions and to the text itself.

Genesis 1 was not written as a blueprint for creation nor as a scientific account of that creation. It is simply a poem designed to highlight Israel's God as creator at a time when there were a few competing options.

EDIT NOTICE: This post has been edited from its originally posted form to add additional comment.

Originally posted by Xavier

It's not about sticking our heads in the sand, but respecting the Scriptures enough to allow them to speak for themselves and to the issues that they were penned to address.

Genesis 1 was not written as a blueprint for creation nor as a scientific account of that creation. It is simply a poem designed to highlight Israel's God as creator at a time when there were a few competing options.

If you believe that, you may as well allegorize the entire Bible. If you can do that to the Genesis account of Creation, then I can discredit the entire Bible as worthless (if not deceptive) crap. Sorry that's my opinion, and I've been a (sold out) Christian all my life...

Originally posted by mpb1

If you believe that, you may as well allegorize the entire Bible. If you can do that to the Genesis account of Creation, then I can discredit the entire Bible as worthless (if not deceptive) crap. Sorry that's my opinion, and I've been a (sold out) Christian all my life...

I'm sorry, but that's just plain stupid and a complete misreading of my statement.

I do not disagree that portions of the Bible are to be taken literally. However, there are portions of the Bible NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. Due justice to Scripture would be allowing Scripture and its context to inform us as to how it should be interpreted rather than holding onto to some backward and Modernist theory of hermeneutics.

Originally posted by Xavier

I'm sorry, but that's just plain stupid and a complete misreading of my statement.

I do not disagree that portions of the Bible are to be taken literally. However, there are portions of the Bible NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. Due justice to Scripture would be allowing Scripture and its context to inform us as to how it should be interpreted rather than holding onto to some backward and Modernist theory of hermeneutics.

Let's agree to disagree :)

Your point is well taken. I simply refuse to believe that the Creation account was NOT meant to be taken literally.

For those who DO take the Creation account literally, and can shed any light on the original question posed, I hope you'll reply...


-

Originally posted by mpb1

Your point is well taken. I simply refuse to believe that the Creation account was NOT meant to be taken literally.

You do so at your own peril... The reason that you are in the mess is that wooden approach to reality.

If you care, then you should investigate. If you don't care, then you weren't much of a Christian to begin with.

And with that and due deference to your wishes as OP, I'm done here.

Originally posted by Xavier

You do so at your own peril... The reason that you are in the mess is that wooden approach to reality.

If you care, then you should investigate. If you don't care, then you weren't much of a Christian to begin with.

And with that and due deference to your wishes as OP, I'm done here.

Xavier,

No offense was intended. And I don't take your words offensively either.

I just wanted to 'agree to disagree' before this thread became an argument about whether or not the Creation account should be taken literally.

Some of us will never be convinced we shouldn't take the Creation account literally. And we will keep our 'wooden approach to reality' until we can make sense of it :)

With that in mind, I'm looking for help in making sense of it...

Originally posted by mpb1

With that in mind, I'm looking for help in making sense of it...

To essentially return to one of my original references, try checking around AiG's main archive. Click here.

Despite the flak that it draws from skeptics, AiG's staff are all highly-qualified academics. You may be especially interested in the archive on Genesis itself.

Originally posted by NJon

To essentially return to one of my original references, try checking around AiG's main archive. Click here.

Despite the flak that it draws from skeptics, AiG's staff are all highly-qualified academics. You may be especially interested in the archive on Genesis itself.

They are YEC - and they seem to be stuck in the same quagmire of being unable to defend it...

When you read their explanation of light from stars, they offer what seems to me at least to be an absurd explanation for it...

here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

There was a PBS show on this recently (I think it was NOVA), showing how a group of scientists from around the world were literally able to photograph Supernovas (gigantic stars) forming.

It's kind of hard to wrap your mind around it, but the photos showing before and after images were actually taken IN OUR TIME - when the light from those events actually REACHED earth - from something like 10 billion light years away (meaning the supernovas actually formed [the events happened] 10 billion years ago!

If we try to explain this away with some freaky explanation of 'time,' like a time warp, it's like explaining nature with science fiction. And even if there was some kind of time warp, it wouldn't change 10 billion years into 10 thousand years...


-