Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth
Creation Ministries International ^ | 11-25-2014 | Keaton Halley

Posted on 11/25/2014 7:41:28 AM PST by fishtank

‘From the beginning of creation’—what did Jesus mean?

There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

by Keaton Halley

Published: 25 November 2014 (GMT+10)

Not everyone welcomes this news, but some of Jesus’ statements imply, of necessity, that the world is young. This is something I regularly point out when I speak in churches about creation, and it is a theme on which we have written previously, in articles such as Jesus on the age of the earth and in chapter 9 of Refuting Compromise. To reiterate the argument briefly, Jesus claimed that human history began at approximately the same time as all of creation came into existence, not billions of years later. This is evident from Jesus’ statements like: “from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’” (Mark 10:6). The obvious implication from these words is that Adam and Eve were on the scene shortly after the heavens and earth were created; they were not latecomers to a cosmos that had already endured for billions of years, as old-earth proponents insist. Thus, for those who take Jesus’ words seriously, there is no way to fit billions of years into Genesis 1 prior to Adam and Eve.

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: creation; geology; jesus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: ziravan
We have the answers we need without making stuff up.

There ya go! Best to believe the Genesis Creation account as is and let it go at that.

No sense in trying to reconcile modern so-called science with the Genesis account anyway.

Case in point: God created light, separating it from the darkness, on the first day and said it was good. He created the sun, moon, planets, and star constellations on the FOURTH day and said it was good.

Throws a whammy into any decent Big Bang kind of theory I've heard.
41 posted on 11/25/2014 8:52:06 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Exactly. If Adam had the appearance of age, the animals had the appearance of age, the trees were not seeds, but had the appearance of age, why do Christians feel the need to compromise and not see that EVERYTHING was created with the appearance of age.


42 posted on 11/25/2014 8:55:03 AM PST by jps098
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jps098

And, no, God is not “deceiving us” with an apparently old earth.

He told us EXACTLY what he did.


43 posted on 11/25/2014 8:56:11 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jps098; All

Anybody know at which point the Creator created time?

I conjecture possibly at the Fall of Man, which for all I know, could have been in relation to the Fall of a third of the Angels in Heaven in Eternity.

(What’s bound on earth has already been bound in Heaven and what is loosed on earth has already been loosed in Heaven?)


44 posted on 11/25/2014 9:04:23 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MrB
He was tall and fully formed, sure, but under closer examination would have proven to be brand-new: No scars, callouses, evidence of internal damage, genetic decay, etc.

The universe, on the other hand, exhibits many evidences of being billions of years old. Just to begin with, we're seeing light coming from far more than 6000 light-years away, and we know from over a dozen ways of testing it, as well as the ramifications of E=MC^2, that it's speed hasn't changed.

To say that the universe is only 6000 years old is to say that God deliberately created a lying illusion. I don't buy that.

As far as what Jesus said, the Genesis narrative is clear that God's works of creation ended with Adam and Eve, not began with them. Ergo, "beginning of creation" must likewise refer to the earliest age of creation being finished, not to day 1, and therefore has no effect on whether we read days 1-6 as being 24 hours or long ages.

Shalom

45 posted on 11/25/2014 9:17:32 AM PST by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oldtech
"You can’t pick out the parts in the Bible that you like & believe them only."

With all due respect, the issue is not particularly a "pick and choose" mentality. The term in Hebrew for "day" can mean "24 hour day", "time", "era" or "age" or several other possibilities. Less than 3000 different Hebrew words serve to fill the entire OT and those words must therefore stretch to a wide variety of meanings, depending on context. Moving them into English correctly is at the root of the problem, since we have approx. 14 million different words.

An example of why some folks believe in a longer creation period is that "morning and evening, one (day)" appears before the moon and sun were in "place". Or at least before they were visible on earth. Thus, they may not be trying to avoid the literal, but are trying to get to actual literal. And, their view is simply bolstered by what science thinks, not controlled by it.

But, if it turns out that all of this happened in 6 24 hour "days", I don't know of any of them that would be angry. They just think the text is literally describing something different.

As far as what Jesus said, His remark, if it refers to the beginning of creation of men and women, is not injured by a longer period of creation.

46 posted on 11/25/2014 9:17:51 AM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus
If one accepts the Markan record as theopneustos (God-breathed), then we need not worry about the overlay of the hebrew, because only part of the statement is from Genesis.  the remainder is Jesus' own direct teaching, esp. "from the beginning of creation." The phrase "arches ktiseos," ("beginning of creation") was already an established term of art among the Jews and had reference to the temporal order, not a logical order.  This clarifies that "apo" has a distinctly temporal sense, and refers us back to that point in time.  See another example here:
Mark 13:19  For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
... where the exact same expression is used, and again has clear reference to a temporal framework inaugurated by God's act of creation.

So no, a modest complexity in the language is no safe haven from this problem.  Jesus meant pretty much exactly what it sounds like He meant, even in English, and we have to start with that, because he was there whern creation happened.

Peace,

SR   
47 posted on 11/25/2014 9:24:25 AM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Hang on. How does the *beginning* of creation (de archeis ktiseios) refer to Day 6, and not Day 1?

Creation ended at the end of the sixth day with the formation of man, right? It didn’t proceed on down the ages through Abel and Noah and Abraham did it? Creation is not still going on is it?

It was a definite time period that lasted 6 days. God’s days if you like but still six days. But whatever way you slice it God made the male and female of mankind at the very end of creation, not the beginning.

Now unless you want to accuse Our Lord of not knowing the Scriptures and His own timeline of creation, I’d be very careful of reading “from the beginning of ALL creation” here instead of “from the beginning of MAN’S creation”.


48 posted on 11/25/2014 9:28:20 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
As far as what Jesus said, the Genesis narrative is clear that God's works of creation ended with Adam and Eve, not began with them. Ergo, "beginning of creation" must likewise refer to the earliest age of creation being finished, not to day 1, and therefore has no effect on whether we read days 1-6 as being 24 hours or long ages.

Well, even though God rested on the seventh day and invited man into his rest, try to not limit his creation to just the things that were apparent during the first six days, since it is evident that time began at some point and continues to exist.

An example: God created you and me in our mothers' wombs and knew us; knit us together, so to speak.
49 posted on 11/25/2014 9:28:36 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

You may want to take a look at Humphrey’s White Hole Cosmology.

http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology

Relativistic speeds are implied in these verses:

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Psa 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:


50 posted on 11/25/2014 9:30:38 AM PST by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
As far as what Jesus said, the Genesis narrative is clear that God's works of creation ended with Adam and Eve, not began with them. Ergo, "beginning of creation" must likewise refer to the earliest age of creation being finished, not to day 1, and therefore has no effect on whether we read days 1-6 as being 24 hours or long ages.

Agreed.

51 posted on 11/25/2014 9:32:19 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
This is a very weak argument.

This is all the young earthers have left? Twisting the scriptures?

52 posted on 11/25/2014 9:47:03 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Blog: www.BackwoodsEngineer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afsnco

Anyone who believes anything Russell Humphreys writes deserves every conclusion they arrive at, including this young-earth nonsense. The guy is an absolute charlatan.


53 posted on 11/25/2014 9:53:00 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Blog: www.BackwoodsEngineer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

If one accepts the Markan record as theopneustos (God-breathed), then we need not worry about the overlay of the hebrew, because only part of the statement is from Genesis. the remainder is Jesus’ own direct teaching


Genesis is not the only source of Hebrew overlay. While I have no doubt that Jesus knew Greek, I highly doubt that he normally spoke in Greek. I trust that the Holy Spirit, acting through the Evangelists, gave a reasonably decent rendering of what He said in Hebrew/Aramaic, secondary meanings would still be both gained and lost in translation.

The Markan passage that you cite does nothing for the young-earth theory, even if it can be demonstrated that the term refers clearly to temporal rather than logical ordering. “Old Earthers” can still hold for creation in time. I’d be interested in substantial scholarly support (meaning a solid discussion of the linguistic evidence, not a list of scholars) to your claim that this term had an established technical meaning, but unless this meaning is both crystal clear and it can be shown that the phrase was only used with regards to the technical meaning, the linguistic difficulties, while not a completely “safe haven” to definitively end the argument, are considerable and cannot be brushed aside.


54 posted on 11/25/2014 9:58:32 AM PST by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
Twisting the scriptures?

I think I have their CD ... or was that Twisted Sisters?

55 posted on 11/25/2014 10:04:41 AM PST by Sparklite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: afsnco
I actually have his book. Unfortunately, he's never been willing to submit his work for peer-review, which makes me suspicious about his own confidence in his math. Conner and Ross wrote up a good rebuttal of it here: The Unraveling of Starlight and Time.

It's too bad. When I first read it, I wanted it to be true, but you have to be willing to follow the testable evidence.

Shalom

56 posted on 11/25/2014 10:40:17 AM PST by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Yes, a couple of seconds after Adam’s formation, he was perfect. Who’s to say that the rest of creation wasn’t perfect as well (it was). Then the Fall.

We’re seeing light coming from far more than the “Big Bang” estimation of the age of the universe as well, so that isn’t a valid argument.

As far as the “lying illusion”, I’ve addressed that as well. God told us exactly what happened. How is that “lying”?


57 posted on 11/25/2014 10:44:53 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Agreed, but the character of his creative acts has changed, and works mostly through natural processes, like fertilization and mitosis. That doesn't mean that God has ceased to be in charge, just that he isn't creating ex nihilo or by directly forming new creatures. The few exceptions to this have been small-scale and for the purposes of establishing his covenants.

This is why speciation, which previously happened at an average rate of one new species per year for the past several hundred million years, suddenly stops when Man appears on the scene: The sixth day of creation ended, and God entered his period of rest, which will in turn end when it comes time to create a new heavens and a new earth.

Shalom

58 posted on 11/25/2014 10:46:06 AM PST by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Arkansas Toothpick
Yes. We need to tread very carefully in dealing matters concerning what He wrought before we existed.

Job 38 (where God challenges Job):

Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy? Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’?

Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken.

Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness? Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this.

What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!

Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, to water a land where no one lives, an uninhabited desert, to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen?

Can you bind the chains[b] of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c] or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth?

God makes it painfully clear: When we start to speculate about the mind of God and what happened during creation (beyond what He has revealed to us) we tread of very shaky ground.

Who knows the unfathomable mind of God? For no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:11). Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? (1 Cor 2:16)

This is why I can't support Ussher's 6000 year calendar that starts at 4004 BC. It is not because it is repeatedly and gleefully used as a cudgel by atheists to beat believers sensesless rhetorically (which is why you see it brought up in the media all the time).

The problem is that a 6000 year timeline is not Biblical. It is based mainly on a misreading of 2 Peter 3:8 (which is quoting Ps 90:4), where Peter states with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Ussher did a basic misreading of Peter. What he did was simple. God created the world in 6 days, a day to God is a 1000 years, so 6 times 1000 years = 6000 years, QED. But don't you see? That's not what Peter wrote! He wrote a thousand years is like a day to Him, not that it literally was.

I am not arguing that it is merely a metaphor. Why? Because I don't have to. 2 Peter 3:8 is not a metaphor, it is something much stronger. It is a simile ('like a'). Peter wrote 'like a' very deliberately, I think, to prevent exactly the kind of bogus literal misinterpretation that Ussher did. To underscore that fact Peter intentionally used two similes and reversed them: that from God's perspective it can go either way. In other words, I think the point Peter is making is actually quite clear: that the passage of time is basically irrelevant from God's perspective.

This is why I give a sigh whenever I see a Young Earth creationist argue the 6000 year timeline with an atheist. Invariably it only serves to reinforce the atheist's unbelief. Why? Not because a I think a belief in a 6000 year-old Earth is scientifically wrong, but because the Bible does not demand it. I will admit that the Earth really might be 6000 years old - I don't know because I wasn't there - but we cannot demand it, and in particular we should not base out witnessing on it to unbelievers as a condition of their salvation.

This is why I think hanging your hat on Mark 10:6 as an assertion that Adam and Eve were created immediately after the stars and the heavens is very dicey. What does 'From the beginning' actually mean to a God that exists outside of time and space? Where you there? Do you know the mind of God? Yes, Adam and Eve were created as the first man and woman, and yes they sinned and Adam fell. But beyond what scripture reveals to us you cannot safely go.

Basically, don't try to put God in a box. He wants us to marvel as His creation, for the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands (Ps 19:1). Just give glory to God and praise Him for the majesty of His creation, of the universe He created with 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars, and revel in coolness of his Plan for us and what He wrought, and be thankful for the underserved gift of salvation that we receive in the blood of Christ Jesus.

59 posted on 11/25/2014 10:58:03 AM PST by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
The sixth day of creation ended, and God entered his period of rest, which will in turn end when it comes time to create a new heavens and a new earth.

I used to think like this too. Then someone said to me, you're going to checkmate God? Took a good deal of consideration to get the better meaning of what he was asking.

No longer do I try to limit God in my daily walk of faith in His Firstborn Son Jesus Christ who said “My Father is working until now, and I am working,” for which He was accused of blasphemy.

You bid me Shalom. Are you an Israelite in whom there is no guile? Are you a believer yet in Jesus Christ as Lord of all Creation? Are you part of "the latter rain" that was foretold?
60 posted on 11/25/2014 11:03:29 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson