Young-earthism continues to be a stumbling block on the debates over origins

Young-earthism continues to be a stumbling block on the debates over origins. While more and more people turn to old-earth creationism/intelligent design as they find it to be the only way to defeat naturalistic evolution & adhere to the infallibility of the Bible, many continue to blindly subscribe to YEC beliefs. Below are some examples of the inane items prinited in some YEC circles, in particular in Creation magazine. The young-earth quarterly magazine Creation has been described as "a cross between the Flat Earth Society Journal and the National Enquirer."

Here is some of the wild pseudoscience presented in the December 2003-Feburary 2004 issue:

1. "Neandertals being fully human [are] descendants of the first man, Adam." p. 7 & "Neandertals were skilful human beings, even talented musicians." P. 41

The consensus of evidence clearly shows they weren't humans which makes this quite embarrassing to YECs, especially this wild claim they were "talented musicians."

2. Oil is easily formed under natural conditions from dead animals and plants, and water, under moderate pressure, in about 4,500 years. p. 7

Really? If that were true, someone could make a lot of money speeding up the process.

Says who? The Bible doesn't say that. In fact the Bible is specific on the types of animals led into the ark.

5. Various dating methods, including Carbon-14, Thermo luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, Electron-spin resonance, Thorium-uranium, and Protactinium-uranium are unreliable. p. 39

Anyone who has actually studied and knows how these methods work and how and when they can be used, know this statement is ridiculous.

6. The Hubble space telescope took pictures of an extra-solar planet 12.7 billion light years away, but the age of this planet "is not based on any evidence whatsoever." p. 8

Funny, I don't remember the Hubble ever finding such a planet so far away. What Hubble are these guys using?

We’ve detailed the fallacies of a lot of these claims throughout these websites and others. But many of these claims can be seen for their ridiculousness even with a rudimentary grasp of science and the Bible.

I know I have had this discussion with YEC to no avail but the word "day" is the Hebrew word "yome" and could mean a literal or a figurative 24-hours. As one example, this is the same word used in Jdg 20:27

"The sons of Israel inquired of the LORD (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days,"

This verse clearly does not mean 24-hours but a span of time.

I'm skeptical that Genesis is talking about a literal 24-hours. The reason is that on the first "day" God created light and darkness. It wasn't until the fourth day God created the sun, moon, etc. This, of course begs the question how was "day" and "night" measured? Certainly not by the rotation of the sun but it must have been on God's time table.

I'm not saying God didn't create everything in 24-hour blocks. Just that all we can REALLY be certain from Genesis is that periods of time took place in the creation of the universe. And we know that God did it on His timetable whether that was 24-hours or something else.

***This, of course begs the question how was "day" and "night" measured?***

I wondered about the same thing myself. For a long time I thought, surely, God took a while for creation... besides, what does it really matter? I mean, God created it all anyway, right?

Then I had to come face to face with the verse...

"And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day"

And it's almost like it was put there to let us know that we are talking about a literal, 24 hour day.

It is true that "day" has multiple meanings in Hebrew (and English) but the addition of "morning" and "evening" can not be gotten around. These modifiers to the word "day" prohibit it from being read figuratively.

The author of the Genesis narrative, without doubt, intended the reader to understand that creation happened in seven literal days.

Our problem is that because of the current scientific atmosphere we find that idea to be a stumbling block (hence the post's title). Day-Age theories are trying to read back something into the narrative which simply isn't there. (Much like the revisionist judges and the Constitution)

When it comes right down to it, the issue is the authority of the Bible.

Jesus himself said, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Jesus is saying that the creation of man and woman happened right at the beginning of the world - not several million years after it initially began.

Untrue. The Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refer to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.

>Jesus himself said, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Jesus is saying that the creation of man and woman happened right at the beginning of the world - not several million years after it initially began.

This too is inaccurate. Just look at Mark 10:6 again: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" If we take this literally then Genesis is in error! Because Adam & Eve weren't made at the begininng of creation. They were either 6 days after, or millions of years after, depending on the form of creationism.

>It is true that "day" has multiple meanings in Hebrew (and English) but the addition of "morning" and "evening" can not be gotten around. These modifiers to the word "day" prohibit it from being read figuratively.

Untrue. The Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refer to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.

>Jesus himself said, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Jesus is saying that the creation of man and woman happened right at the beginning of the world - not several million years after it initially began.

This too is inaccurate. Just look at Mark 10:6 again: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" If we take this literally then Genesis is in error! Because Adam & Eve weren't made at the begininng of creation. They were either 6 days after, or millions of years after, depending on the form of creationism.

Exodus 18
13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening.

My friend, I don't think any would construe from this verse that Moses judged the people for millions of years! The context is "all day long".

Leviticus 24
2 "Command the Israelites to bring you clear oil of pressed olives for the light so that the lamps may be kept burning continually. 3 Outside the curtain of the Testimony in the Tent of Meeting, Aaron is to tend the lamps before the LORD from evening till morning, continually. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.

He didn't stand tending the lamps there while the ages rolled and the mountains eroded down to plains!

Daniel 8
14 He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."... 26 "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future."

Quite clearly "evenings and mornings" is not to be understood as eons - in fact the author gets across to the reader the idea of a rather large timespan by including the number 2,300! The context of a "vision" also tells us we are in the realm of the symbolic. The Genesis account is no vision.

Every verse you listed is a clear reference to a 24 hour day. They even use the idea of "many" or "continuous" 24 hour day periods to get across the idea of longer spans.

***This too is inaccurate. Just look at Mark 10:6 again: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'"***

This can be translated "at creation's (or the universe's) beginning" which in Greek echoes the Hebrew phrase, "In the beginning God created..." . The events which happen in the first chapter of Genesis are all under the heading of ,"In the beginning...".

If you believe that creation took million or billions of years, then Adam and Eve could not have been created in the "beginning" of that process no matter how you slice it. No person would look at something happening at 11:58 pm on the geological timeline and call it "the beginning of the whole process". Besides, you can't match up Genesis and current theories - Genesis has the earth created BEFORE the stars!

What do you do with the verse written by the finger of God in stone, right in the middle of the ten commandments, which says...

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. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Are the rest of the commandments not to be taken literally?

History is full of examples of people who stood by the Word of God while those around them mocked them for their foolish or outmoded ideas. Given time, the truth of the Word of God will always be vindicated.

One modern example is the existence of the Hittites. Up until the beginning of this century there was no evidence of the existence of the Hittite nation. It was either at Princeton or Harvard - Christian students were mocked by their skeptical professors regarding the Bible and the mysterious missing Hittites. Well, archeology proved the professor wrong when major discoveries were made of the Hittite's existence including their culture, architecture and language. You can now learn to read Hittite!

I understand where you are coming from. You probably feel like you are protecting the Bible from the Luddite believers who are making the message look foolish! To want to protect, defend and uphold the Word of God is a noble idea!

But I challenge you to take your stand on the Bible as it written and not seek to read into it things that aren't there so as to make it more palpable for unbelievers. There are many stumblingblocks in Christianity: the cross, the resurrection, the flood and even special creation. A crucified Messiah was an almost intolerable stumblingblock for a 1st century Jew - but Paul gloried in it!

You can glory in a God who created the entire universe in six literal days - and if people call you a fool or a simpleton for believing it then let them say what they will - you've taken God at His word and you will not be disappointed.

You seem to be oversimplyfying scripture. For example:

>Exodus 18 13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening.

This morning to evening would be a 12 hour period, not a 24 hour period, hence how does morning/evening always mean 24 hr days? etc...

>The context of a "vision" also tells us we are in the realm of the symbolic

Just because it is a "vision" does not in any fashion negate the meaning or usage of the Hebrew. There aren't separate rules for "visions."

>This too is inaccurate. Just look at Mark 10:6 again: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'"***

You have missed the point. This verse doesn't help yecs. Why? :: "Some young-earthers claim Jesus endorsed the young-earth view when he said, “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’” (Mark 10:6). Their suggestion is that this verse proves God did not create man millions of years after creation. However, read that verse again. If we take it literally, then it is in error, because God did not create man at the beginning of creation in either old- or young-earth creationism. The latter claims it was six days later. So “beginning” must be referring to a time period or era, not a particular day."

>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. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.Are the rest of the commandments not to be taken literally?

You can take them very literally if you consider what day literally means. Does this verse literally mean six 24hr days? No, most likely not.

>But I challenge you to take your stand on the Bible as it >written and not seek to read into it things that aren't >there so as to make it more palpable for unbelievers.

But the whole point is that it is not written as young-earthers claim. The whole young-earth premise is based on a series of fallacies and poor Hebrew-to-English translations.

>You can glory in a God who created the entire universe in six literal days

You could, but I don't see any reason to believe that He did it in six days. At least you aren't like many YECs I have met. Some YEC leaders like Ken Ham seem to promote their beliefs through emotionalism and attacking other Christians.

Sorry to take so long getting back to you...

***You have missed the point. This verse doesn't help yecs. Why?***

No, my point was that everything in Gen 1 is under the title "In the beginning..." including the creation of Adam and Eve. In fact the NEB translated Gen 1 as:

"In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth..."

I'm saying that the phrase "In the beginning of creation" is synonymous with the phrase "In the beginning of the world" and not "At the inception of the creation process"

But what to my point that, "you can't match up Genesis and current theories - Genesis has the earth created BEFORE the stars!" And what about plants existing before the sun was created?

I think if you follow this line of reasoning you will come to the point that you have to throw out the whole Genesis account. The entire thing will have to be viewed as symbolic.

***You can take them very literally if you consider what day literally means. Does this verse literally mean six 24hr days? No, most likely not.***

Would the average reader in 700 BC have taken it to mean a literal 6 days? Absolutely. Without a doubt. And that is an important principle in the interpretation of scripture - what would the original readers have understood.

***Some YEC leaders like Ken Ham seem to promote their beliefs through emotionalism and attacking other Christians.***

If that is true it is unfortunate. I see no need to attack you. You seem to be someone who is honestly seeking to know the truth. I am afraid, however, you've gotten a bit of bad theology which, in the long run, may provide harmful to your spiritual health. I speak from experience as an ex-(theological)liberal.

If the plain and sensible meaning of the Bible can not be trusted from the first chapter, then how can any of it be trusted? The camel of disbelief has his nose under the tent, so to speak.

If God did not create in a literal week, then how can we be sure he created a literal man? Is Adam a historical person or a symbol for primates?

>No, my point was that everything in Gen 1 is under the title "In the beginning..." including the creation of Adam and Eve.

No, that's incorrect. Gen 1:1, and the Hebrew seems to confirm, is referring to the initial creation of the universe. There's also a distinct change in perspective from Gen 1:1 to Gen 1:2. In Gen 1:2 the writer begins to write from the viewpoint of someone on Earth, Gen 1:1 is written from a viewpoint outside the universe.

>Would the average reader in 700 BC have taken it to mean a literal 6 days? Absolutely. Without a doubt.

The only way you can say "Without a doubt" is if you were alive then, so the point is that this is a meaningless argument. Only in the English does "6 literal days" seem so evident.

>I am afraid, however, you've gotten a bit of bad theology which, in the long run, may provide harmful to your spiritual health.

So the old-earth interpretation, which perfectly reconciles special and general revelation without the problems of yecism, may be harmful? It is young-earthism where I hear things like: "He had embraced young earth creationism because ‘it seemed to make sense.’ But he found himself developing ‘Christian schizophrenia’ because he could not bring his weekend and workday worlds, and their conflicting realities, together.” [Andy Butcher, “He Sees God in the Stars.” Charisma Volume 28, Number 11 (June 2003): pp. 38-44.]

>If God did not create in a literal week, then how can we be sure he created a literal man? Is Adam a historical person or a symbol for primates?

Again, here is your fundemental fallacy: You're entire belief is contingent on the word literal. The Hebrew for day has more than one literal meaning. The Hebrew does not specifically in any way say 24 hour days, only day, so one has to look at the context. The context does not allow 24 hour days.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.