I'm looking into Old Earth Vs. New Earth Creationism. It's been bugging me for a while. At first, I was just going to ignore it, because quite honestly, I've never understood why the two constantly demonized each other over this issue, and I didn't think it mattered that much. But my brain wouldn't let me drop it, so I've decided to bite the bullet.

(NOTE: Old Earth Creationism is not the belief in Evolution. It's just the belief that the earth is much older than New Earth Creationism claims.

So I wanted to know if any of you have any books/ articles/ documentaries for this subject. What's your take on it? Why?

- Terra

Wait, are you classifying Old Creationism vrs New as the 10,000 year approximation of the earth's age vs the 4-6,000 approximation of the earth's age?

I need some clarification.

The Hebrew word translated "day" is used many many times in the Old Testament, and we are sure that it means a 24 hour day throughout the whole thing, except Genesis 1. It seems strange to question it's meaning in that one instance.

TerraRandom, I am sure this website will be helpful: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/daily-articles
There is a ton of information there, but it is sorted pretty well. Enjoy!

I disagree with the basic concept of your post, Brendan. Genesis is our foundation for everything. I think the scripture gives us a lot to go off of, but like other areas of scripture, you have to really look for these truths.

And Reiyen's statement is correct, I believe. I've done research on it, and the word used, as well as the phrasing it is paired with (this was not a poetic metaphor), tells the reader that the Bible is talking about a literal 24 hour day. It isn't a presupposition.

But I don’t think Terra was questioning that.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the terms "New Earth" and "Old Earth" because "Old Earth" can be used to describe several theories. That God created the Earth and used evolution, that God didn't create the Earth and it was solely chance, and that God created the Earth in seven days but it is much older than what "New Earth" believers think, to name the three I've heard of.

If you're asking for opinions. My opinion would be that Genesis pretty much lays everything out for us. God created the Earth in seven days, plain and simple. As for the age of the Earth... I believe it's relatively young. For many reasons.

If you're asking for facts. I don't know all too much (at least not compared to other people I've met that have delved deeply into these subjects) but I know a few. I know that scientists are beginning to question the idea of an "Old Earth" because the sun seems to loose about five feet every hour. Which makes the idea of the sun having been millions of years old slightly...entirely impossible. And I'm pretty sure the Bible mentions the age of (or how to find the age of) the Earth somewhere. Sometimes it just takes some searching.

For now, though, that's really all I know. I remember something along the lines that when I was little I was told to answer the question of "When did Jesus come?" with "2,000 years ago.", but other than that I haven't exactly been taught much on this subject. Most of what I know is from my own research and the occasional question I'll throw my parents off guard with.

This might not be much help, but I thought I'd give it a go.

Bethany Faith

The usual trick for finding the age of the earth is using the driest parts of the Bible (genealogies) to calculate the number of years before extra-Biblical sources can give us an age. Throughout Genesis, it is recorded at what age each person was when they had their eldest son, and then the age he was when he had his first son... and on down the list, all the way from Adam to I think it is Jacob. Once you get there you are very close if not within where other data sources from history can tell you how long ago that was, so you just add how long since Jacob to how long before and voila! You have an age for the earth. There is some discrepancy in there because you don't know whether or not Adam's age counts before the Fall, or maybe some gap room between the end of the Genesis genealogical record and the beginning of other data sources, so we could only tell within a fairly small range of possible ages.

Thanks. I will be reading them.

I did actually find an interesting article that claimed Old Earth was Biblical. But I'm not sure how accurate it is. Mom's read a lot on this subject, too, and found that both sides have been known to stretch facts. So here's the link. Haven't read all of it yet, because it's kinda long.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-st ... -genesis-1



I was using opposite ends of the extreme for simplicity's sake. Where New Earth Creationist say 6000 years, and Old Eathians say 1 million+ years. (While still denying Evolution.) But I'm all for alternatives.

Basically I'm looking for both Biblical and Scientific facts for both ends of the arguement. I don't actually expect to come to a definite conclusion, I'd just like to know the why the beliefs are what they are and where the 'knowledge holes' are, and why people make such a big deal of it.

Hope that helps. Thanks for all the responses. They've been helpful.

- Terra

I tend to lean toward an older earth myself, but I agree with Inesdar, that there's really no way to know. My dad and I have had countless discussions about creation, and it's always fascinating every time. I had a really good web site that I used in school half a dozen years ago but I haven't been able to find it. I've lost all my bookmarks since then...

To expound upon what Inesdar said; the bible is not a history text. I don't believe it was ever meant to be an accurate reproduction of the past. It was given to us as a spiritual guidance. I believe it is true and correct, but only in the sense that it was given to us. It is more than possible that the details of creation are not given to us to know, and therefore are not recounted in detail.

Do you realize that about half of the OT (Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah) are almost purely history books? Some of them are more dry than the history textbooks I read for school. A lot of them have almost no direct spritual application. If the Bible wasn't meant to be an accurate reproduction of the past, those books are 95% of the way to useless. And if it wasn't mean as an accurate reproduction, then why is it right 100% of the time? It seems odd that something would end up being an accurate reproduction when it wasn't intended to be.

If the reproduction of past events wasn't so literally true, why would God include so many embarrassing moments like Judah and Tamar, Jacob's deceit, David's adultery, Moses' sin, Peter's denials, the disciples' selfishness? I may be misunderstanding what you meant, but if the Bible is only a spiritual guide and not a literal history, it's practically useless because its morals and ethics are based off of lies and untrue events. It would be like proving a moral with Jack and the Beanstalk as a parable.

I'm not saying it isn't true, or that those events aren't accurate. I'm saying that historic events are possibly selective. We know the details of only a few of King David's wives. What about the rest? We can dig up other sources, and speculate, and bicker, but the Bible doesn't tell us. It isn't complete. It's the written word of God, not the written History of King David. There are some books that are purely historical, they are actual written chronicles kept at the time. Genesis was not a historical chronicle. I believe the writing of it could have been nothing less than a miracle. It was meant to show us God, not detail the age of the earth. Does that make more sense?

Well, for scientific for New Earth, I have a few.

1. Helium escapes from the ocean at a steady rate, and if the Earth was millions of years old, the atmosphere would mostly helium

2. Salt runs into the oceans at a steady rate as well, and if the Earth was millions of years old, we'd be able to walk across the oceans.

3. The Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1989 made a canyon as large as the Grand Canyon in 20 minutes.

If you believe that (a) God created the heavens and the earth, and (b) He didn't use evolution to create living things, then it brings up the question: Why would the earth need to be very old?

If you would like some good info on creationism look into "answers in Genesis" really good stuff.

Varon: That's assuming we know a lot.
Jonathan: who knows? It's an interesting question.

My basic take is this. We know nothing. We're ignorant little ants who can't begin to know the why, where-to-fores, and reasons of the universe. For everything science discovers ten more questions arise. The earth appears to be much older than the creation story allows for. Is it? Or is that an illusion? How do we know? How can we know? How can we presume to know for a fact that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

I love science. I love discussing this theory or that theory. I tend to lean towards an older earth versions myself, but I don't throw my vote in with one or another.

The Lord created science to testify and point to Him. I am always amazed at how science lines up with God's word, and how supposed "conflicts" with scripture and science are disproved the more and more we learn about science. I'm also very impressed by how much science supports the Genesis account.

I'm kind of late on this topic, but thought I would join in anyway.

First off, I apologize for all the harsh language that Christians on both extremes of this issue use. I think an accurate abbreviation of 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 applies in this case, as follows; 'No matter what I say, what I think, or what I do; without love I am an annoying nothing that gains nothing'.

I have decided to trust the young earth ideas.

There are two sites where you can easily research these questions. The best is icr.org (Institute for Creation Research) and answersingenesis.org .

In order to find the relevant material in these vast sites, it is important to use the right language in the search engines. All the questions asked and all the topics discussed in this forum will be addressed at these sites.

"Young earth creation" refers to the 6,000 to 10,000 year old creation.

"Theistic evolution" refers to the 4.5 billion year old earth.

The implications of each starting position are serious.

I am finishing the final edit of my series of books about life before the flood of Noah. I am most interested in historical fiction, so the background is very important to me.

Very cool, Jerry, that you did this research to ensure you had good groundwork for your Historical FIction piece.

Thanks Airianna,

I find that discovering what God has done is part of worship. I am filled with wonder at His wisdom and creativity (I suppose this 'pun' is intentional).

As an old paleo-flatulant; I did not do the research out of a desire to write a pre-flood fictional series. Rather, my life-long love of Scripture, people, history and science has kind of erupted into a compulsion to write the pre-flood fiction.

God means what He says, and He was able to inspire the writing of His words in a way that people can understand them. Then Christian scientists, with impeccable credentials, believed God and uncovered the evidences that God's acts left behind.

Amen.

Well, doesn't it say in Genesis 1 'And the evening and the morning were the first/second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth day'? That should give us a pretty good idea that it really is talking about 24 hour days

But Genesis is a historical chronicle. It's got loads of geneologies, it's got the account of creation all the way through to Joseph's death, including the Flood, God's calling of Abraham out of Ur to Canaan, the beginning of the twelve tribes, etc. It's a very important book, as much historically as spiritually. God gave the first prophecy of Jesus in Genesis, and it's not just in there, it was given to Adam and Eve, real, historical people.

The thing about old-earth theories is that they were created so that the Bible would fit into science, or, more specifically, evolution.

Evolution requires having an old earth; how else could random chance create the world? (not that it can anyway...) However, if Genesis is taken literally, there is absolutely no reason for the Earth to be any older than 6,000 years. But, after evolutionary ideas took hold, and it was commonly accepted that the earth was extremely old, creationists tried to fit Genesis into those theories. The result was the Day-Age Theory, The Gap Theory, and Theistic Evolution.

In reality, none of those are really needed, if you take Genesis at face value, along with the scientific data already mentioned.

That's my 2 cents, anyway... I hope it made sense!

I totally agree, Abby, except with one minor alteration. Taking the Bible literally, it has been decided that it could be anywhere under 10,000 years old. 6,000 is the commonly accepted age, but 10,000 is still possible in a young earth model. I just wanted to make that clear. I agree with everything you said.

Oh, okay. I think I have heard that a few times.

*nods * Like I said, 6,000 is the common number, so you were totally right.

Jerry, I'd love to read your books.

'The Genesis Record' by Henry Morris and 'Adam and His Kin' and 'Genesis Roots' by Ruth Beechick are well worth reading.

To go on from the history discussion... authorities have noted that Genesis is not written as poetry or prophecy, but as history. I don't think the Bible was meant to be a complete history of the world... or even of Israel, but the history of salvation and 'textbook' to a personal relationship with God. The different genres (prophecy, history, poetry) cater to this dual purpose excellently. On a side note, the toledoth method is a fascinating theory for the authorship of Genesis.

To repeat what Princess said, theistic evolution was taken up as a compromise between the secular idea of evolution, and the Biblical account. My view is that while evidence can be interpreted either way (though a young earth belief has fewer scientific 'holes'), it comes down to a matter of authority. Are we going to accept what man says God did, or God says He did?

Two Christian Biblical creationists met with two Christian theist evolutionists in a debate is available to watch at Answers in Genesis in the 'Video on Demand' section. Is call 'The Great Debate: Between Science and the Bible'. Ken Ham, Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Kaiser. It explores specifically the Hebrew word 'yom' used in Genesis one, what it means when coupled with cardinal and ordinal numbers, and when joined with the phrase 'evening and morning' among other things pertaining to. Exceptionally fascinating.

*loves Morris!!! * Both of them, actually.

I actually watched part of that debate. Only part though, because it's really long.

@Princess - I wondered about that, too. If that was the case, I was prepared to take that into account, though not completely discredit old earth theory until I looked at the science. But after a little bit of googling:

It appears that this view of each day containing a thousand years was popular among Early Church Fathers as we read from St. Cyprian of Carthage:


I find what Clement of Alexandria writes curious. He says that we cannot know when creation took place from reading Scripture:


There are also numerous other quotes like this here: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm

Don't get me wrong, I'm still suspicious of Old Earth Theory. (I'm still suspicious of both, really.) I'm just pointing out that there has always been a debate as to what the six days really were, and how old the earth was. (although they may not have been quite as extreme as +billion years old.) and I don't really know who most these people are, nor do I necessarily agree with them.

I'm not sure if that made any sense. It's almost 4 AM where I am.

Wow, this was a long post for me.

- Terra

No, that made perfect sense!

Have you looked into the meaning of the word yom (day)? I know it has two meanings, but when used with 'morning' and 'evening', it always means a literal day. I don't know all the details, though... so you might want to look into it, if you haven't already.

Also, if we have a thousand years between the days, there are some serious problems....

On day 3 God created dry land, the seas, and vegetation.

But why would the Lord create plants, that need the sunlight to grow and live, first, if he was going to wait a thousand years before creating the the sun, the moon and the stars?

Those are some excellent points.

But then there's another problem, which is actually one of the key things holding me back from the literal six day view until I find a satisfying answer.

On the first day, God creates light. Then Sky. Then Plants. Then the Sun and the Moon and stars. The Bible ends each account with 'evening and morning,' but the only day you could have had evening and morning (a literal evening and morning, at least.) was the fourth day when God created the Sun. Dr. Kaiser brought that up, and sadly, neither Ken Ham or Dr. Jason Lysle answered his question, so I'm still looking for a good counter argument.

Thoughts?

- Terra

You don't need the sun or anything for day and night, you only need light. And if the light is coming from one direction, the spin of the earth gives you day and night. As for what the light is from, it's a good question, but if necessary, God could just create light. After all, God creates light and separates it from the darkness, so presumably there was light coming from something at the time.

That sounds plausible.

- Terra

Well, what would be the meaning of 'morning' and 'evening', if there was no such thing, and if every day was actually one thousand years? It specifically says, "And the evening and the morning was the first day." And God created light, so obviously, since the earth was already revolving, there would be light and darkness alternately. Really, the idea of it taking God six thousand years to speak a few words makes no sense, especially when it's pretty plain from the text that it only took six days.

There's a problem.

We have zero reason to not take them literally, excepts for pandering to, e.g., the "scientific elite", or what have you. From the text, we don't think, "Oh! I bet one day - morning and evening - is really one thousand years!" You can't get it. Nothing in the context or anywhere in Scripture remotely suggests such a few.

And that is not a valid method of biblical interpretation. It is eisegetical, when we should be exegetical - taking things from the text, not forcing things upon it, or getting things that aren't there.
God bless,
Joel ><>.

I disagree. There's been a debate on whether or not the six days were literal for a very long time. *Points to above quotes.*

These statements were made by Early Church Fathers in 2nd Century A.D., long before the theory of evolution, so they can't have been catering to that particular world view. Saint Augustine didn't even actually even believe in a six day creation, but rather one instantaneous act.

When people say something like 'back in the day of my childhood,' they are not trying to imply that their childhood lasted only a single day, they are using metaphor. The Ancient Hebrews particularly were highly metaphorical and used symbolism to convey concepts and principals as common way of communication. It wasn't until Alexander the Great that people started to communication became much more literal. Throughout the OT, Satan is repeatedly referenced as a dragon, and, at least once that I know of, a lion. Does this make lions and dragons inherently evil? No. But to the Hebrews, dragons and lions meant something deeper than the actual animals themselves. (Okay, dragons aren't real. But one can dream, right? )

- Terra

The problem with using the early church as an example is that the bible makes it very clear that the early church had some serious doctrinal and theological issues going on. Just look at all the letters written to correct errors in the church.

In fact, Gnosticism and new age theories crept into the church long before we had names for them. I think there were lots of evolutionary tendencies, way back when, before Darwin coined the term. Many of the same heretical and theological issues of today were going on in the early church. Both the bible, and history, shows us that.

So just because they questioned the literal days of Genesis, before evolutionary thinking became the norm, doesn't mean they were correct in their thinking, and not affected by the culture.

Yes. I agree. I was merely pointing out that this is not a new argument, and not necessarily as a direct result of evolution.

- Terra

Fair enough on that point, for them - but not for us. Even still, it cannot be derived from the text. Nothing in Scripture suggests anything but literal, 24-hour days.

Forgive me, I apparently misunderstood you.
God bless,
Joel ><>.

@Crush - Hmmm. How so? I haven't really read anything so far that's convinced me as such, and would be glad to hear your reasoning. ^.^

- Terra

On what point specifically? Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you want me to address...
God bless,
Joel ><>.

Oh. Oops, sorry if I wasn't clear. I've been known to do that every now and then.



Basically that.

- Terra

About the Great Debate and what Dr. Kaiser said about how can there be days before there is a sun to mark the day neither Mr. Ham nor Dr. Lisle got time to address that issue in the debate properly, but I expect it will be addressed in full on the audio commentrary that is included in the actual DVD of the Great Debate. Here's a link that describes something of what is added on the DVD, and gives a sampling:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/08/07/learning-great-debate

Ha, no problem.

This is going to sound repetitive, but, simply, nothing else is there but literal days. It says "days"...It describes an evening and morning...A "day" can be considered a turn of the earth...

There's nothing to suggest it's not literal, so we no reason from the text to believe it's not. The same word is used elsewhere to describe a "day" (and we never question them, so why do we question this?).

What from Scripture - if anything - would make you question it not being a 24-hour day?
God bless,
Joel ><>.

Just because God made light doesn't mean He left it on all the time. I'm finding that fascinating to think about, because my fantasy world does not have any celestial beings, just light and darkness. I never thought to compare that to the Earth before the creation of the sun and moon, so that's very intriguing to me.

That being said, I'm moving this thread down to General Discussion. While these kinds of threads are welcome on this forum, only threads that pertain to theology in regards to writing belong in the Scholar's Hall. Threads about theology in general belong in General Discussion. Since this thread is just about the Old Earth vs. New Earth debate, and not about anyone's book in particular, I am relocating it.

Carry on!

Here's the related announcement: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=2876

The fact is that even if a day were a thousand years you can't help evolution's cause at all. Evolution needs millions of years for anything to happen. Giving plants two thousand years to become animals and saying that helps evolution is merely mocking evolution.

Indeed. That would put the age of the earth up to...oh...13,000ish? Not near enough (and also baseless, because this mystical little "day-thousand-years-thing" cannot be found, though a certain verse is abused in context of that).
God bless,
Joel ><>.

This is an interesting debate. This site will probably help whoever want's it: http://www.creation.com.

*Clicks link*

Very cool.

- Terra