I completely believe in young earth young universe. 6000 years old. Im shocked rzim speakers say so little about it. How can any Christian believe all the propaganda about evolution unless they have not spent the time listening to every lecture available on the topic both sides? And after having heard both sides it is evident that there are scientific explanations for every single objection to the Bible. That means in light of theories existing to support the bible on every single occasion why aren’t there more prominent Christians speaking up for the veracity of the bible? Once the bible is discredited even once people will side against God
Love your cute nick hehe. Your topic is still widely debated even among Christian scholars. There are good arguments for both sides. I, for one, am happy to sit on the sideline and observe its development.
But at this point in time, I would agree with Frank Turek that whatever assumptions we make about the age of the universe, we are making assumptions we can’t prove.
Frank refers to John Lennox’s book “7 Days That Divide the World”. I haven’t read it myself, but I have seen the video of that sermon. And it was really good. John Lennox is a professor of mathematics at Oxford University, and also a speaker for RZIM. Each speaker has areas they are strong in, and areas they prefer to refer to other speakers that are better-equipped to answer. And I love this part about the RZIM team, it shows their humility and also functioning as a unified team, not a single know-it-all superman. But RZIM does address a wide gamut of topics, from the complex and simple, due to our amazing line-up of speakers. You just need to find the right speaker or sermon who covers a very specific topic that you are looking into, and boy are we glad, they leave it to an expert on that field to talk about it.
Here is John Lennox’s video that Frank Turek refers to btw:
So, in closing, whichever stance we take as Christians in this particular issue, it doesn’t discredit the veracity of the Bible at all. But we can’t prevent people from believing what they want to believe regardless, or what they don’t want to believe too. In fact, like Frank points out at the end of his video, at the end of it all, God is not too concerned whether we believe the earth is young or old, because it doesn’t discredit the Bible in anyway. On the contrary, this is an area He makes room and invites us to explore and continue learning progressively, advancing in science in the process. However, our eternal destiny lies not in our knowledge of the world, but in our knowing intimately (having intimate relationship with) of our Creator and Savior. That is what God takes enormous pleasure in.
Hope that helps, Stephan. I love your inquisitive passion to defend the Bible. Cheers!
Blessings in Christ,
I share the frustration over the battle of this controversial topic. Through my limited knowledge, I continue to attempt to understand and find the answer to this argument. However, I see this issue two-faced. The evolution that we hear of and are forced to believe is politicized and construed. I think that it is useful to remember that Darwin’s scientific observations were in pursuit of understanding rather than to defile the Church. Scientific findings today are thus twisted and used to create premature assumptions in order to attempt to defile the Bible. I find history as a useful pattern to apply to human nature. When Copernicus deemed the solar system heliocentric, many in the Church could not come to terms with the assumed contradiction between science and the Bible. Regardless, we, today, realize that it does not contradict. I do not claim to know whether this present topic assuredly follows this pattern, but I feel that it might. In conclusion, I do not begin to believe that I know how God made everything. However, I am sure that every child of God should be treated as such with values of meaning and purpose in coordination with His plan. The devaluation of man by naturalistic frameworks is certainly incorrect, and stands as the obstacle between pure research into finding the inner workings of how the Lord, God created this fine Earth. I think that is all I have.
In addition to @RoySujanto’s excellent answer, just wanted to provide some information on different interpretations of Genesis among Bible believing Christians. There are not only two positions - evolution and creationism. There are in fact Christians who believe God created the entire universe from nothing who also believe the earth and universe are old. They take the Bible seriously and love Jesus, but do not hold to a young earth.
I recognize that there are arguments for a young earth such as the use of the word yom and arguments based on critiques of radioisotope dating. I’ve read books from the institute for creation research / answers in genesis, spent plenty of time on their website in my younger years and been to both the creation museum and ark encounter. However, I still believe strong arguments can be made for an old earth and a local flood. I believe there is room for different beliefs on this topic.
The age of the earth, to me, is a conviction or an opinion - certainly not an absolute of our faith.
- absolutes define the core beliefs of the Christian faith;
- convictions , while not core beliefs, may have significant impact on the health and effectiveness of the church;
- opinions are less-clear issues that generally are not worth dividing over; and
- questions are currently unsettled issues.
Hope this offers some perspective
Concordist views hold that the creation actually occurs in the same order listed in Genesis 1. Non-concordist views do not require that the actual creation of the world occurred in the same order. Here is a table giving a brief summary of some of the major concordist and non-concordist interpretations.
I have always believed the earth is young and that God created everything just as is explained in the first 2 chapters of Genesis. I also believe everything was created very good but Adam and Eve brought sin into the world causing destruction and death to all of creation. I can find no convincing evidence in the bible or in the observation of history of evolution or an earth over a few thousand years. God spoke the world into existence. He talked with Adam and Eve and gave them instructions. Jesus said people were at the beginning of creation(Mark 10:6). Satan has always tried to twist God’s word, with Eve in Genesis 3 “did God really say?” Even with Jesus in Matthew 4. We need to know God’s word so well that we can not only use it refute opposition, but to give encouragement and draw ourselves and others closer to God. For me to do that I must have complete confidence in its inerrancy therefore, I don’t wish to get into arguments over the length of days or age of the earth because I’m convinced it is how it is plainly read. I don’t believe I’m alone. If king Solomon was the wisest man that ever lived and he said lean not on your on understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6), then who am I to question God’s word.
There is quite a bit of discussion on connect about the subject, both pro and con. Here is one of many threads.
I personal think that to try to shoe horn the Bible into a science book is a mistake. I don’t see any Doctor’s defending the Bible when it says that we think with our bowels? I don’t see anyone citing book chapter and verse on “the earth is flat class in the Bible”, that’s because there isn’t one but the average person of the ANE culture knew that it was flat just like the average person today knows the earth is a sphere and we are a moon of the sun not because they when to science class but because everyone just knows. I don’t mean in an innate sense but in a cultural sense, how the cosmos is viewed, discussed and understood in the everyday vernacular of today.
I tend to think that 6 literal days for a supernatural God is slow, why no 6 nanoseconds? I also wonder if it took 6 literal days or 14 billion years to create this universe how long will it take for the new heaven and the new earth to be created and will we be asking the same questions, how long oh Lord? Is instant beyond his reach? Does 14 billion make him less God?
I have found it helpful to try to put some context to what the folks in that day would have understood about the cosmos. It might surprise you to learn that no one was concerned about the material creation of the cosmos only its function and order and this would include the ancient Hebrews as well as the cultures that predated them. If you read any of the 2nd temple literature, you would find that it was considered a sin to question a pre-cosmos state. Here is a commentary by Jacob Neusner on the Genesis Rabbah written mid 2nd to mid 3rd century AD.
Our sages do not refer to the physics of creation, or the chemistry of the making of woman and man. They refer to the purpose of creation, later on finding the principle of humanity as representing God’s likeness, in God’s image.
Neusner, J. (2004). Confronting Creation: How Judaism Reads Genesis: An Anthology of Genesis Rabbah (p. 27). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Now as we move on into the mediaeval period of history and we find this discussion was on the front burner in all four religious/philosophical arenas, Greek, Jewish, Muslim and Christianity. But from I have read I don’t recall anyone trying to calculate how old the universe was but there was thought to the age of the earth. If you are interested you might google these. Saadia Gaon (882-942), Solomon ibn Gabirol (1026–1050 or 1070), Judah Halevi (1085–1141) and Maimonides (1135–1204). Another interesting thing that was common throughout the Rabbinic teachings, the immutability of Torah. What I am trying to convey here is that they had no problem with the mystery of the beginnings. Maimonides even maintained that:
In general, we hold that the “gates of interpretation are not closed,” meaning that we may interpret a biblical verse to satisfy a philosophical or scientific demand if we need to, i.e., if this philosophical teaching were proved.
Neusner, J., Avery-Peck, A. J., & Green, W. S. (Eds.). (2000). In The encyclopedia of Judaism (Vol. 2, p. 720). Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill.
But on the subject of creation he contented that “ the gates of interpretations are closed ” and the reason he gives is very similar to your objection, “ the very existence of the Torah (you might say the Bible) is subverted if the laws of the universe rule out miracles and divine providence.” My only comment here is all that I have read (admittedly a drop in the bucket) there was no real attempts to age the universe.
I know this is not the answer but I have found that there were and are many Believer who differ(ed) on this subject.
A question that I keep at the forefront of my mind is a variation of Maimonides position on the gates of interpretation, are they closed or open on creation? Should modern day scientific facts (not theories or half baked claims) influence how we read and understand scripture?
I know I have thrown a lot of Rabbis at you but for the record I am believer in Christ crucified and Christ glorified but I would like to close with an excerpt from a modern day Rabbi:
Then came the Torah and soared aloft, as on eagles’ wings, above all these notions. Not many gods but One God; not theogony, for a god has no family tree; not wars nor strife nor the clash of wills, but only One Will, which rules over everything, without the slightest let or hindrance; not a deity associated with nature and identified with it wholly or in part, but a God who stands absolutely above nature, and outside of it, and nature and all its constituent elements, even the sun and all the other entities, be they never so exalted, are only His creatures, made according to His will.
Cassuto, U. (1998). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I, From Adam to Noah (Genesis I–VI 8). (I. Abrahams, Trans.) (pp. 7–8). Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University.<
As great as the debate regarding the origin of earth and the universe is, I love that you brought it back to the most essential point: knowing Christ.