Welcome to CHFWeb.com  The Christian Homeschool Fellowship on the WEB
Quick Start
[Support our Advertisers!] Getting Started on the Homeschooling BUS!
SheLaughed.com
CHFWeb Forum Area Articles of Significance on CHFWeb.com CHFWeb Mall --For all your resource needs! Library Area on CHFWeb.com Advertise Contact Us
CHFWeb Help!
[Support our Advertisers!] Contributions from our Members:   The Socialization "Issue" ... This discussion was pulled out of the "archives". Back in November 1997, Kevin and Kate Megill posted this outstanding reply to a question about the socialization (or lack of socialization) of homeschooled children. [Support our Advertisers!]
Home » CHFWeb Forum » HotTopics » Poll: Age of the earth
Poll: Age of the earth [message #379593] Fri, 15 February 2008 23:29 Go to next message
lcourtneymom(Leah)  is currently offline lcourtneymom(Leah)
Messages: 603
Registered: February 2007
Location: SC
Senior Member

Age of the earth[ 42 vote(s) ]
1.I believe the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days. 5 / 12%
2.I belive the earth was created by God but the days were not six literal 24 hour days. 3 / 7%
3.I believe God "started" the earth but then left it to evolve. 3 / 7%
4.I believe that the book of Genesis, including the creation and flood acounts is totally literal and accurate. 25 / 60%
5.I believe the book of Genesis, including the Creation and flood accounts is figurative. 2 / 5%
6.Some combination 4 / 10%

I am reading The War of the Worldviews from AIG, and it was very interesting to me that they stated many Christians do NOT believe in literal 24 days of creation and a literal interpretation of Genesis. I do know not everyone thinks Genesis is literal and there are varying views of the earth's origins even among Christians. I just didn't realize the idea was that common?

I would be interested to hear what you believe and why.


Leah

Wife of Jason (17 years), mom to dd( 12 ), ds(11), dd(8) and dd(6)

I say to myself, "The Lord is my portion; therefore I will wait for Him." Lam.3:24

Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379596 is a reply to message #379593 ] Fri, 15 February 2008 23:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14920
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

If you search through Hot Topics, you'll find several discussions of it. It gets pretty hot here, and I'm sure you'll find quite an array of opinion about it. Personally, I'm pretty stuck on the actual Genesis account.


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379598 is a reply to message #379593 ] Fri, 15 February 2008 23:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kate Megill  is currently offline Kate Megill
Messages: 6501
Registered: April 2005
Location: NW rural Illinois
Senior Member

I believe the earth was created in a literal 6 days BUT I also believe that the earth was created mature (just as Adam and Eve were mature). Light from the sun, moon and stars did not have to travel light years to get to us...it was to us immediately. Adam and Eve were able to eat from the trees in the garden...they didn't have to wait for saplings to develop and then eventually bearing fruit. How this affects the way the 'age' of the earth is determined is more than I know, but I believe that it is not inconsistent with the scriptures to believe that the earth was created mature (in a mere 6 days) and fully functioning to support life immediately on the planet.


In His Joy and Grace,

Kate

Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379614 is a reply to message #379598 ] Sat, 16 February 2008 07:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Carrie L  is currently offline Carrie L
Messages: 2094
Registered: May 2005
Location: NH
Senior Member
I voted #4, but I guess I should have said #6, because I also believe in #1 as explained by Kate.


Carrie

Only three things are necessary to make life happy: the blessing of God, books, and a friend.
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379644 is a reply to message #379614 ] Sat, 16 February 2008 10:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14920
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

Carrie L wrote on Sat, 16 February 2008 07:10

I voted #4, but I guess I should have said #6, because I also believe in #1 as explained by Kate.


Oh, I guess I didn't read carefully. #4 includes #1, but I guess I didn't read #4...I believe in a literal flood, too. I also agree with Kate, that it was created "mature." There's just no way I can see that you could possibly get the idea of evolution from the Bible, and I can't see God misleading us so profoundly as to put in something that is so incompatible with evolution as the explanation, if evolution really is the true explanation.


And then there's the whole death before sin thing if it took millions and billions of years to arrive at Adam and Eve...then that negates the whole idea that the wages of sin is death, because if there was death before sin, then sin didn't cause it, and it's just "natural," and therefore the whole sacrifice of Jesus was pointless.

[Updated on: Sat, 16 February 2008 10:22]


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379678 is a reply to message #379593 ] Sat, 16 February 2008 13:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kate Megill  is currently offline Kate Megill
Messages: 6501
Registered: April 2005
Location: NW rural Illinois
Senior Member

Oops...I voted #1 because that was the first one I saw and said, "Yep, I agree with that one!" But I completely agree with all of Genesis so I should have voted #4 because that encompasses #1...so #1, #4 and #6.

This is why I don't vote on call in TV shows!!! Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked (that plus the fact that we don't have TV reception and most of them I would never watch, and if I did I'm not concerned enough to play into the drama of it all...time for me to be quiet!!!)


In His Joy and Grace,

Kate

Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379715 is a reply to message #379593 ] Sat, 16 February 2008 16:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kjsa
Messages: 101
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
I voted #3, but perhaps should have voted #2 or #5 instead. I absolutely think God is the creator and creation is a miracle, but whether "speaking the world into being" was literal-I have some doubts about. Was the world made exactly according to God's intentions and through his power--yes.
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379724 is a reply to message #379715 ] Sat, 16 February 2008 16:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kate Megill  is currently offline Kate Megill
Messages: 6501
Registered: April 2005
Location: NW rural Illinois
Senior Member

kjsa wrote on Sat, 16 February 2008 15:17

I voted #3, but perhaps should have voted #2 or #5 instead. I absolutely think God is the creator and creation is a miracle, but whether "speaking the world into being" was literal-I have some doubts about. Was the world made exactly according to God's intentions and through his power--yes.

Not arguing, just curious. Why, if the world was created exactly according to God's intentions and through His power, would you doubt that it was not literally spoken into being? That seems as easy a way as any (to me) for it to have come into being? Just wondering.


In His Joy and Grace,

Kate

Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379767 is a reply to message #379724 ] Sat, 16 February 2008 21:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kjsa
Messages: 101
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
To answer Kate:

I must say this is not one of my major issues or interests, and I haven't done a lot of my own research, spent hours on Ken Hamms(?) website...so perhaps I should have kept quiet!

My change in thinking from the literal interpretation is primarily the result of discussions with my husband and quite a number of other Christian friends--true and vibrant believers, several of them scientists--who have looked seriously at the question and believe geologic evidence does point to evolutionary process in creation. And the creation story is "poetic" literature and leaves room (we believe) for interpretation that way. I think Genesis 1/2 was to help man understand God and our relationship to him more than give us a science lesson. From what I've read of Elizabby's comments in the past on the subject, I think we believe much the same. Or maybe I shouldn't "obligate" someone I don't know except in cyberspace Smile , and say I think like Frances Collins, the genetic researcher.

I might ask, "why would God make everything look such that scientists could theorize millions/billions? of years of geological evidence if the earth is only 6000 years old?" Evolution seems as easy a way as any (to me) for it to have come into being.

I say humbly that I really don't know, and if, when I get to heaven, I find out it was six 24 hour days, I'll only hope that my openness on this issue here on earth served to open doors to conversations with unbelievers that I hope will bear eternal fruit.
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379770 is a reply to message #379767 ] Sat, 16 February 2008 21:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kate Megill  is currently offline Kate Megill
Messages: 6501
Registered: April 2005
Location: NW rural Illinois
Senior Member

kjsa wrote on Sat, 16 February 2008 20:14



I might ask, "why would God make everything look such that scientists could theorize millions/billions? of years of geological evidence if the earth is only 6000 years old?" Evolution seems as easy a way as any (to me) for it to have come into being.



Laughing Laughing I guess, no matter HOW God started the world, those who reject Him would have come up with SOME idea to explain the world's existence that rejected a Creator.

For me, since I believe in a Creator/God anyway, reading the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts as literal seem pretty straightforward and reasonable compared to the contortions evolutionists go through to explain it! Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing It sure makes sense to me that God would have created a world that was mature and ready to support immediate life (animal and human), but then, I'm not a scientist. Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Since I see absolutley NO distinction in the style of writing between Genesis 1 and 2 and the rest of Genesis (or the other history books for that matter, I see no reason to presume that the account is poetic.

Trust me, I haven't studied this from a Creation Scientist point of view either. I've just studied it from a my monthly reading of Genesis (my absolutely FAVORITE BOOK!).

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on this! I always enjoy reading what other believers understand the scriptures to be saying and why. I may not always agree but it causes me to go back to the Word and restudy it for myself. Thanks again!


In His Joy and Grace,

Kate

Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379774 is a reply to message #379593 ] Sat, 16 February 2008 22:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kjsa
Messages: 101
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
You're welcome. Very Happy
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379780 is a reply to message #379593 ] Sat, 16 February 2008 22:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lcourtneymom(Leah)  is currently offline lcourtneymom(Leah)
Messages: 603
Registered: February 2007
Location: SC
Senior Member
Thank you all for sharing so far. I do know this can get hot, and I've seen a few hints at past discussions. Wink It is just something I honestly have never thought much about. I have always taken the creation account as six, literal, 24 hour days, and I have always accepted Genesis as a literal, factual account of what happened.

I just kind of thought this was the "accepted belief" among most Christians. But, lately I have been studying lots of stuff from AIG and using lots of their materials with my dc. I am learning ever so much and finding out I really like science. Shocked Very Happy

But, I am also genuinely interested to know why someone wouldn't accept the creation account as literal - really not trying to be argumentative, just trying to learn more as I really have a new, excited interest in the topic!

Also, sorry I made the choices sort of confusing. I wanted to included origins of earth belief but also the literal account of Genesis - including the flood. Confused


Leah

Wife of Jason (17 years), mom to dd( 12 ), ds(11), dd(8) and dd(6)

I say to myself, "The Lord is my portion; therefore I will wait for Him." Lam.3:24

Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379783 is a reply to message #379780 ] Sat, 16 February 2008 22:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kim L. from MO  is currently offline Kim L. from MO
Messages: 2235
Registered: April 2005
Location: Missouri
Senior Member
lcourtneymom wrote on Sat, 16 February 2008 21:39


But, I am also genuinely interested to know why someone wouldn't accept the creation account as literal


I have wondered too, for someone who doesn't take it literally, if they take one day in 7 to rest. When did a day go from something longer to a 24 hour period?


"....And if your Master’s truth offends the gentlemen to whom you speak of it let them be offended. His name we must confess; of His glory we will continually talk…" Charles Spurgeon
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379798 is a reply to message #379715 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 02:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Elizabby  is currently offline Elizabby
Messages: 5476
Registered: April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Senior Member
kjsa wrote on Sun, 17 February 2008 08:17

I voted #3, but perhaps should have voted #2 or #5 instead. I absolutely think God is the creator and creation is a miracle, but whether "speaking the world into being" was literal-I have some doubts about. Was the world made exactly according to God's intentions and through his power--yes.


Hello sister!! I was wondering who might have picked #3 since I knew it wasn't me! Laughing I picked #5, even though it doesn't fully represent my POV, it is probably the closest. You are right (I suspect) that we think similarly on the topic - if you've read my past posts you have a pretty good idea of my opinions, since I've posted many times before on this topic.

For Leah (the OP) if you want to know what I think, just search on my name and "Creation" in Hot Topics and you should get most of it. I have posted quite a lot over the years, as this topic keeps coming up periodically! I was just wondering the other day when it was due back again! Laughing I'm happy to discuss what I believe and why, but it is a big topic. Is there anything else in particular you were wondering about?

In brief, in my part of the world non-literal belief in Genesis is the norm rather than the exception. I met someone the other day who is a literal Creationist, but it is not common. Every Christian I know believes that God created the world. Without exception. The differences are in beliefs about *how* he chose to do it - either by fiat (speaking) or some kind of evolutionary process which took variable amounts of time.

I call it "non literal belief" because all Christian believe the word of God to be true and saving. We all believe in the Bible. The question is about what *kind* of truth is it? I believe that Genesis tells us a lot about the nature of God (kind, provider, creative, etc) and a lot about human nature (endlessly curious, making excuses under pressure, disobedient by nature, etc). So I believe in the truths of Genesis in a non-literal way. (Even if you don't agree with me, these are my deeply held beliefs, so let's not have the "you can't be a *real* Christian" discussion. Not saying you were about to, but BTDT, so I just thought I'd mention it up front. We should all agree before we start that this is NOT a salvation issue. I'm over that - I no longer judge people by their stance on evolution! Wink )

On the age of the earth I can tell you that all the geological, biological and archeological (and what is the study of fossils called?) evidence points to the earth as being millions of years old. The astronomy and physics evidence points to the universe as being billions of years old. Since I do not hold a literal view of Genesis, this does not impact on my faith view at all, so why shouldn't I believe in the best evidence of the day? I'll agree up front that evolution is a "theory" but it is the best theory around which explains all the facts, as currently known. If a better theory comes along I am happy to revise my position based on the science of it - but Creationism is NOT science, it is a faith position, and from having studied both I concluded that the science is not convincing to me.

Quote:

Why, if the world was created exactly according to God's intentions and through His power, would you doubt that it was not literally spoken into being? That seems as easy a way as any (to me) for it to have come into being?


Not addressed to me, but I'll answer it anyway because I do get asked this a lot. I agree that God *could* have miraculously spoken the world into being. I just don't think He did. From my POV, IF Genesis is a poetical discussion on the relationship of God with humans and not a scientific manual for how God created the world, THEN there is no reason not to believe in where all the scientific evidence points.

But I *do* believe in miracles in general - God is a person and can do as He likes, He doesn't have to stick to the rules. What makes miracles miraculous is that they are *different* from the way the world normally operates according to the the scientific evidence. (The next question is, I suppose, could Creation have been a miracle? I guess it could, but I don't think it was.)

Quote:

I might ask, "why would God make everything look such that scientists could theorize millions/billions? of years of geological evidence if the earth is only 6000 years old?" Evolution seems as easy a way as any (to me) for it to have come into being.


Laughing Good answer, but I've always been too scared to give it, in case someone thought I was being flippant!


Your sister in Christ,

Elizabby

Evie is six, Zoe is four, and Benji is two!

Not online as much these days, contact me through email or my blog if you want to talk to me!
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379799 is a reply to message #379770 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 03:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Elizabby  is currently offline Elizabby
Messages: 5476
Registered: April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Senior Member
Kate Megill wrote on Sun, 17 February 2008 13:44


Since I see absolutley NO distinction in the style of writing between Genesis 1 and 2 and the rest of Genesis (or the other history books for that matter, I see no reason to presume that the account is poetic.


Kate - can you read it in Hebrew? (I'm not being smart alecky, really!) But unless we can read something in the original language, we are relying on the translators interpretation of what "kind" of writing it is. I have certainly seen English Bibles (two that I can think of) where Genesis 1 IS set out as poetry. And I understand from my Hebrew-speaking lecturer that it is poetry, and very nice poetry at that.

Do you *really* see no difference between Gen 1 & 2?? I confess I am amazed. They read very differently to me. Maybe try reading each one at a time, and write down your impressions if each version was the ONLY version of the creation account. I found this exercise very interesting! (Of course, only if you want to. I'm not trying to tell you how to study your favourite book of the Bible!)

Still, here are some of my impressions:

Gen 1 seems almost "ceremonious" if you KWIM, very planned, and with the repetition of the "and that was the first/second etc day" and with everything being declared "good". God appears to me to be more distant, only speaking things into being and watching them take place. The trinity is here too.

Gen 2 and following describes a different point of view of God's creative activity. God here gets his hands dirty forming his creature. He walks in the garden, he talks, he asks questions. He doesn't appear omniscient, or to know the future. The trinity is not obviously in evidence here.

(I don't think it is disrespectful to the Bible, or incompatible with Creation to note these differences in style in different parts of the Bible, mush the same as I would not differences between different books in the Bible. I truly do not mean to be irreverant, and I hope you don't find me so, or can forgive me if I am.)


Your sister in Christ,

Elizabby

Evie is six, Zoe is four, and Benji is two!

Not online as much these days, contact me through email or my blog if you want to talk to me!
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379800 is a reply to message #379783 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 03:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Elizabby  is currently offline Elizabby
Messages: 5476
Registered: April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Senior Member
Kim L. from MO wrote on Sun, 17 February 2008 14:48

lcourtneymom wrote on Sat, 16 February 2008 21:39


But, I am also genuinely interested to know why someone wouldn't accept the creation account as literal


I have wondered too, for someone who doesn't take it literally, if they take one day in 7 to rest. When did a day go from something longer to a 24 hour period?



Sort of. I believe that it is good for us to rest, but I don't believe that as Christians today we are bound to keep the "Sabbath" in the strict sense. (This has nothing to do with my evolutionary ideas though.) I do try to get to church once a week to gather with other Christians, but I don't beat myself up if I don't make it.

I don't think a day was ever longer than a 24 hour period. One sunrise/sunset to the next has always been "one day". Unless you mean figuratively? There was a theory a while ago that one "day" might mean 1000 years in God's creative time, and this way blend Creation and Evolution together. I don't think this is a very popular theory now - it doesn't really give full credit to either side IMO.


Your sister in Christ,

Elizabby

Evie is six, Zoe is four, and Benji is two!

Not online as much these days, contact me through email or my blog if you want to talk to me!
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379822 is a reply to message #379593 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 08:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kate Megill  is currently offline Kate Megill
Messages: 6501
Registered: April 2005
Location: NW rural Illinois
Senior Member

Elizabby, I see a this distinction between Genesis 1 and 2: I see it all as telescoping in from the very large picture of the void before creation to how God created energy, space and time and how He filled it all. Then I see Him zooming in even closer to give us a very specific picture of His focus on man. To me, this is no more poetic than the introduction of a textbook that gives an overview of the content of the rest of the book! Wink Kevin sees Genesis 1 as poetry BUT as literal not figurative, though.

No, I haven't read it in the Hebrew. Shocked But then I'm not convinced that God would have allowed all the poetry to have gone out of the text if it were intended to be that way - I believe His preservation of the scriptures throughout the ages would have kept the imagry and poetry of an intended poetical text, it certainly did in Song of Solomon and many of the Psalms. I still follow Occam's razor on this one: (paraphrased) "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." And since I believe in a God who is the Creator, for me, the simplest solution is that it happened JUST as He said.

(not to you) The only thing I can accept as a possiblity of differing time than 6 literal days is that until God created the sun, moon and stars, the first "days" might not have been literal 24 hour days. But, once the sun, moon and stars WERE created, I have to absolutely take the stand that day meant a day as we know it.

As Lisa mentioned before, I CANNOT accept any form of evolution in the creation of the world as we know it (NOT talking about micro evolution going on today still), because it would mean that death was in existence before the fall and that is completely contrary to scripture (and not just the Genesis account). The evolutionary account of creation is based on death and that contradicts the scriptures.

But, I'm willing to agree to disagree! Wink

[Updated on: Sun, 17 February 2008 10:10]


In His Joy and Grace,

Kate

Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379856 is a reply to message #379593 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 13:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
blessedwithboys  is currently offline blessedwithboys
Messages: 1119
Registered: April 2005
Location: Western Pa.
Senior Member
I really shouldn't discuss this issue and I've walked away a few times already, but without the "biting my tongue" smiley available, I have to comment...

Why do we look at creation as something that needs to be proven by man in order for us to accept it? Can man scientifically prove how miracles happen? It's called "faith" for a reason.

I think when we question creation, we question God's ability to make it happen. My God is awesome, He can do anything, He has no limits. I think it's very haughty of us to assume that we will be able to understand or explain everything.


~It is well with my soul...
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379865 is a reply to message #379798 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 14:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lcourtneymom(Leah)  is currently offline lcourtneymom(Leah)
Messages: 603
Registered: February 2007
Location: SC
Senior Member
Elizabby, thanks for coming along. I knew you had some differing views, and I really am looking for a genuine understanding, not argument.

I also agree this is NOT a salvation issue.

Quote:

On the age of the earth I can tell you that all the geological, biological and archeological (and what is the study of fossils called?) evidence points to the earth as being millions of years old. The astronomy and physics evidence points to the universe as being billions of years old. Since I do not hold a literal view of Genesis, this does not impact on my faith view at all, so why shouldn't I believe in the best evidence of the day? I'll agree up front that evolution is a "theory" but it is the best theory around which explains all the facts, as currently known. If a better theory comes along I am happy to revise my position based on the science of it - but Creationism is NOT science, it is a faith position, and from having studied both I concluded that the science is not convincing to me.


This is what I don't agree with at all. With my newfound interest in science Wink , I have been reading and studying and it is just not true that all evidence points to the earth being millions or billions of years old. The fact is even evolutionists struggle with "proving" many of their ideas. The same facts can be taken and interpreted just fine in the light of a biblical, literal creation account.
And, I submit that Creationism and evolution are both a faith position. True science requires observation. No one has ever observed any type of evolution that would result in changes such as the "evolutionary theory" say have happened. No one observed creation either - except God. If I have to choose a position to have faith in, it seems much more reasonable to me to put my faith in a Creator that I have already put my faith in for salvation than in a theory that even those who firmly accept have trouble proving.


Leah

Wife of Jason (17 years), mom to dd( 12 ), ds(11), dd(8) and dd(6)

I say to myself, "The Lord is my portion; therefore I will wait for Him." Lam.3:24

Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379867 is a reply to message #379856 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 14:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lcourtneymom(Leah)  is currently offline lcourtneymom(Leah)
Messages: 603
Registered: February 2007
Location: SC
Senior Member
Quote:

I really shouldn't discuss this issue and I've walked away a few times already, but without the "biting my tongue" smiley available, I have to comment...

Why do we look at creation as something that needs to be proven by man in order for us to accept it? Can man scientifically prove how miracles happen? It's called "faith" for a reason.

I think when we question creation, we question God's ability to make it happen. My God is awesome, He can do anything, He has no limits. I think it's very haughty of us to assume that we will be able to understand or explain everything.


Thank you, Dawn. I agree, too that we don't have to "prove" everything for God. He is Sovereign and He could have started the world however He wanted too. He certainly doesn't need me to "prove" how He did it!


Leah

Wife of Jason (17 years), mom to dd( 12 ), ds(11), dd(8) and dd(6)

I say to myself, "The Lord is my portion; therefore I will wait for Him." Lam.3:24

Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379885 is a reply to message #379593 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 15:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Elise  is currently offline Elise
Messages: 1954
Registered: April 2006
Location: Ohio
Senior Member
I chose the last option because 1 and 4 both fit my views. And the more I've read this year from Apologetics Press, Apologia and Case for a Creator, the more I'm convinced that science really does support the Genesis account. (Not that I think we need to prove it - faith is what's important here, but I find it fascinating to learn how science backs up the Bible.)


Blessings,
Elise


Wife to Dan
Retired homeschool mom to Emily and Bryan
Academic Resource Tutor at a local high school - basically Mom-at-the-kitchen-table for about 50 students
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379887 is a reply to message #379593 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 16:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
~Janice  is currently offline ~Janice
Messages: 8310
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member


I tend to think the creator God is literal - also the flood and other OT stories are literal. As to how, exactly! God did the creation I'm not sure what I think. I do not believe in a young earth but probably a young and spontaneous humankind. Yes, God could create everything to look old but that's really reaching and why would he feel compelled to "fool" us? What would be the point? I'm not a scientist and I don't play one on tv - also I'm not all that smart I just don't find the creation argument to be the crux of my faith in Jesus.


TAKE TIME FOR FRIENDS!

Janice T. ~ CHF member since 09/97 ~
Mom to four - ds 28, dd 26, dd 24 and ds 21 - and wife to my sweet husband Richard.
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379893 is a reply to message #379887 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 16:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14920
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

Janice T. wrote on Sun, 17 February 2008 16:07

Yes, God could create everything to look old but that's really reaching and why would he feel compelled to "fool" us? What would be the point?



Why would a young earth that was created mature and functioning be a matter of "fooling" us when we are clearly told what happened? There's no "fooling" or "dishonesty" involved. Besides, it's MAN's idea that all that we see "must" be ages and ages old, so who's to say even that idea is correct. Maybe the earth looks exactly the age it is and it's our wrong thinking that makes us think it looks old. That would be our fault, not God "fooling" us.

It seems that it's very easy to get our own ideas in our head and try to fit what God did into them...and then turn around and wonder why God did something.


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379894 is a reply to message #379885 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 17:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lcourtneymom(Leah)  is currently offline lcourtneymom(Leah)
Messages: 603
Registered: February 2007
Location: SC
Senior Member
Quote:

And the more I've read this year from Apologetics Press, Apologia and Case for a Creator, the more I'm convinced that science really does support the Genesis account. (Not that I think we need to prove it - faith is what's important here, but I find it fascinating to learn how science backs up the Bible.)


I agree, Elise! That is how I've felt reading this stuff from AIG! I grew up in a small Christian school, and we were just taught in science that we believed in creation, not evolution, and basically you were just supposed to accept it no matter what "real science" said. But I am learning more and more that biblical creationism DOES have its roots in real scientific fact! And that is very exciting for me to learn and to teach my kids!


Leah

Wife of Jason (17 years), mom to dd( 12 ), ds(11), dd(8) and dd(6)

I say to myself, "The Lord is my portion; therefore I will wait for Him." Lam.3:24

Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #379953 is a reply to message #379893 ] Sun, 17 February 2008 20:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
~Janice  is currently offline ~Janice
Messages: 8310
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
Lisa R. wrote on Sun, 17 February 2008 15:59

Janice T. wrote on Sun, 17 February 2008 16:07

Yes, God could create everything to look old but that's really reaching and why would he feel compelled to "fool" us? What would be the point?



Why would a young earth that was created mature and functioning be a matter of "fooling" us when we are clearly told what happened? There's no "fooling" or "dishonesty" involved. Besides, it's MAN's idea that all that we see "must" be ages and ages old, so who's to say even that idea is correct. Maybe the earth looks exactly the age it is and it's our wrong thinking that makes us think it looks old. That would be our fault, not God "fooling" us.

It seems that it's very easy to get our own ideas in our head and try to fit what God did into them...and then turn around and wonder why God did something.



That's true and like I said I don't really know. I've heard your argument before - and the stuff I said. Another non-science thought is that I find it interesting to think that God did nothing (at least nothing we can see which could in itself mean nothing) for all His existence until He created our earth, the universe and us about 6,000 years ago. It's just one of those questions that are probably unanswerable but very interesting.

I don't think that everything has been recorded.

[Updated on: Sun, 17 February 2008 20:57]


TAKE TIME FOR FRIENDS!

Janice T. ~ CHF member since 09/97 ~
Mom to four - ds 28, dd 26, dd 24 and ds 21 - and wife to my sweet husband Richard.
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #380158 is a reply to message #379953 ] Mon, 18 February 2008 13:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14920
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

I don't know that He did nothing. What about the angels and Satan being cast down and all that stuff. I am not really "up" on that, but it's my general understanding that that all happened before the creation of the world.


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Re: Poll: Age of the earth [message #382299 is a reply to message #379593 ] Mon, 25 February 2008 23:52 Go to previous message
K in nc  is currently offline K in nc
Messages: 3157
Registered: January 2006
Senior Member

#1 and #4

literal 6 day creation (24 hours per day)
literal interpertation of genisis


Wife to the most wonderful man in the world for 27 years! Mom to the three most wonderful kids in the world! (well most of the time)
Previous Topic:Anybody see this?
Next Topic:Ralph Nader Running Announcement...
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Feb 17 23:42:53 EST 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.22636 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

The Socialization "Issue" ... This discussion was pulled out of the "archives". Back in November 1997, Kevin and Kate Megill posted this outstanding reply to a question about the socialization (or lack of socialization) of homeschooled children.

CHFWeb.com Interactive is Powered by: FUDforum 2.6.12.
Copyright ©2001-2004 FUD Forum Bulletin Board Software