Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

[Angelo]

I think Young Earth Creationism is nonsensical from a strictly theological point of view. Young Earth Creationism holds that the creation of the world as described in the Book of Genesis is literal, historical truth, and that all of history has been recorded in one fashion or another, maintaining that pre-Biblical times did not exist.

This is in contrast to almost all observable evidence. In order for a literal interpretation of Genesis to be correct, at least one of the following must be true:

Humanity's understanding of science, particularly of biology and physics, are hopelessly incorrect on almost every level. Despite this, humanity's flawed understanding of science still produces reliable, reproduceable data.

God intentionally engineered the whole of creation to be utterly misleading when confronted with rational investigation. All of this was done as an implicit test of faith. It is implicit because the Bible never mentions any scientific topic as flawed, meaning that this grand charade was created without a specific directive from God on how humanity should interpret it.

The Devil has altered the whole of reality to reflect the above. This interpretation makes the Devil vastly more powerful than any interpretation I have seen.

The alternative is to reconcile science and theology by simply acknowledging that God gave a figurative account of creation because He was speaking to humans who lacked even rudimentary understanding of science, for whom complex topics like evolution and celestial mechanics would require thousands of years of discovery to even begin to comprehend.

How do the early chapters of Genesis relate to the claims of modern science? Mainstream science claims that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the universe as a whole is about 14 billion years old. Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world in six days. Is there a contradiction?

People interested in the relationship between science and Genesis have been considering these questions for more than a century. They have come up with not merely one but a whole host of possible explanations. It helps us to be familiar with the possibilities so that we do not too quickly adopt one explanation without considering alternatives.

 

[civic]

I believe God is Miraculous. He created man with age from day 1 as a full grown adult. Why couldn't God make the universe with age as well to confound the wise, the wisdom of this world. Also the 6 days of creation are literal days with literal events of creation that took place.

NINE REASONS WHY THE “DAYS” IN GENESIS 1 MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS NORMAL (24-HOUR) DAYS​

1. The Hebrew word yom, translated “day,” is used more than 2,000 times in the Old Testament. In 95% of these cases, the word clearly means a 24-hour day, or the daylight portion of a 24-hour day. Since this is the way the word is most often used in the Old Testament, it should be understood in this way in Genesis 1 unless there are compelling reasons to prefer some other meaning.
2. God defines what he means by “day” in Genesis 1: “God called the light ‘day’ and the darkness he called ‘night’ ” (Genesis 1:5).
3. The terms “evening” and “morning” make it clear that normal days are being referred to in Genesis 1. These terms are used in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31.
4. The numerical qualifier (e.g., “second day,” “third day”) demands a 24-hour day. This usage is found in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, 2:2, 3. The word “day” appears with a number over 200 times in the Old Testament, and in every case the reference is to a literal day.
5. God established the sun and moon “to separate the day from the night,” “to mark seasons and days and years,” and “to govern the day and the night” (Genesis 1:14-18). These passages clearly refer to normal days.
6. The Ten Commandments given to Israel were spoken by God himself, and were also written directly by God in stone (Exodus 20:1, 31:18, 32:16). Within these Ten Commandments, God described his work of creating the universe: “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” (Exodus 20:11). Since the Sabbath command is linked in this way to the creation week, the “days” of the creation week must be of the same kind as the “day” Israel was expected to rest.
7. The primary reason some people want to lengthen the “days” of Genesis 1 is to make room for the evolutionary scenario, which requires billions of years. But evolution is simply incompatible with Genesis 1, and stretching the meaning of the word “day” will not accomplish the reconciliation of the creation and evolution worldviews. They are just too different. Consider the following admission by Pattle P. Pun, professor of biology at Wheaton College. (Note: Dr. Pun writes as a theistic evolutionist.)

It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to all the hermeneutical considerations suggested by [evolutionary] science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the Fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith. (Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, March 1987, p. 14)

1. In the New American Standard Bible, Genesis 2:4 says: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” Here is an instance where the word “day” does not refer to a 24-hour day. The phrase “in the day that” is a Hebrew idiom meaning “at the time that” or simply “when” (as the phrase is rendered in the New International Version). But this usage does not invalidate our understanding of “day” meaning a 24-hour day (or the light portion thereof) in Genesis 1. In fact, a similar occurrence of this idiom appears in Numbers 7:84 (see NASB margin), which follows twelve literal days of offerings (Numbers 7:12-83).
2. II Peter 3:8 says, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” But this is a simile (a literary device used for comparison) given to help us understand the Lord’s patience, not a hint as to how we should interpret Genesis 1. The word “like” is not the same as an equal sign! Also: the word “day” is unlikely to carry a figurative meaning in Genesis 1 since it appears for the very first time there. Words are used figuratively only after their literal meaning is well established. Richard Niessen

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

A careful examination of the Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time. The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather's day...”). It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4. So, what does it mean in Genesis 1:5-2:2 when it's used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24-hour periods or something else? Could yom as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?

We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 simply by examining the context in which we find the word and then comparing its context with how we see its usage elsewhere in Scripture. By doing this we let Scripture interpret itself. The Hebrew word yom is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words “evening” and “morning” together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + “evening” or “morning” (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + “night” (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day.

The context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5-2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” makes it quite clear that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. The references to “evening” and “morning” make no sense unless they refer to a literal 24-hour day. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5-2:2 until the 1800s when a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community, and the earth's sedimentary strata layers were reinterpreted. Whereas previously the rock layers were interpreted as evidence of Noah's flood, the flood was thrown out by the scientific community and the rock layers were reinterpreted as evidence for an excessively old earth. Some well-meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-flood, anti-biblical interpretation with the Genesis account by reinterpreting yom to mean vast, unspecified periods of time.

The truth is that many of the old-earth interpretations are known to rely upon faulty assumptions. But we must not let the stubborn close-mindedness of scientists influence how we read the Bible. According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's workweek: work six days, rest one. Certainly God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow.got?

hope this helps !!!

 

[Dizerner]

I think Young Earth Creationism is nonsensical

I'm with you on this. It's a tough issue how some believers latch on to this as a primary and even salvific issue at times. There have always been theologians among both Jews and Christians who took Genesis as a metaphorical framework.

The YEC would argue that science must be denied if Scripture contradicts it, which does introduce problems in the reliability of our senses, no doubt. In principle, we might say they have honorable intentions, but at the same time it would seem to introduce a kind of deception in creation, as you pointed out. Some try to argue that God might have created the appearance of age as Adam was said to be a full grown man. I do think it is completely valid to say that makes God an active deceiver by misleading us about the evidence creation has left behind. The dinosaurs may be a test of faith for some, but they were not put in there as a trick.

I think in this instance, it would be less profitable to try to face YEC head on and convince it's proponents, as they tend to be exceedingly zealous for whatever reason, and it becomes a Romans 14 issue. However, at the same time, we do not want to promote their intellectual dishonesty or create stumbling blocks for people who would come to Christ if they believed that scientific observations could in fact be compatible with Christian belief. So the best course of action, is just to focus on showing the compatibility of science and faith, rather than attempting to convince YECs.

 

[civic]

the OE people like adam and satan do not believe Gods spoken word and are deceived. Many are deceived with the doctrines they espouse. We see this daily on the forum and every other forum. Its an attack on Gods character, His spoken word.

OE have death before sin thats their first and foremost mistake. Its anti-biblical, anti-gospel, anti-christs teaching.

Its exactly the same tactics satan used on adam and tried on Jesus questioning Gods word and misrepresenting what God has said is true. OE is of this world and its wisdom, not of God.

Might as well be a full blown evolutionist.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Wholeheart]

Well there is the Bible verse that states "one day is like a thousand years" found in 2 Peter 3:8: "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day". This verse emphasizes the different perception of time in relation to God.

God is not bound by counting days from a human perspective. Time does not hold Him. He does not wait or rush in the same sense that mere humans do, locked as we are into minutes and hours and months. What seems like poor timing to us, as limited people, has a plan and purpose known only to God.

Additionally, Psalm 90:4 also reflects this idea, stating, "For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past". In this verse we find a remarkable perspective on time from a spiritual standpoint. The verse tells us that God perceives time vastly differently than humans do. A thousand years are like a single day or merely a few hours to Him. This shows us the astounding nature of God’s eternal existence.

 

[Dizerner]

OE have death before sin thats their first and foremost mistake. Its anti-biblical, anti-gospel, anti-christs teaching.

This is (quite literally) the only valid criticism in my eyes, and I will say I feel as strongly that sin comes before death as anyone, and in fact, I would say that I feel even more strongly about it than most people.

There are many models of OE and TE that still put sin before death, so it would be a straw man to paint with such a broad brush here. My own model is that evolution itself is part of the punishment for Adam and Eve's sin.

 

[Dizerner]

I think

I would be very interested in a post chronicling your theological journeys if you are the LADodgers I remember.

 

[civic]

I would be very interested in a post chronicling your theological journeys if you are the LADodgers I remember.

He is not LA.

 

[Angelo]

Nope not me.

 

[Dizerner]

Nope not me.

Thanks for clearing that up, it's very odd your account links back to his posts.

Perhaps a forum bug.

 

[Neil Spargo]

There is also the theory called mature creation. It takes its cue from the creation of Adam and Eve. It understands Genesis 2 to be saying that Adam and Eve were created mature, rather than growing gradually from babies to adults.

And did trees in the garden have rings for each year?

 

[Angelo]

There is also the theory called mature creation. It takes its cue from the creation of Adam and Eve. It understands Genesis 2 to be saying that Adam and Eve were created mature, rather than growing gradually from babies to adults.

And did trees in the garden have rings for each year?

Interesting, so if some things, such as Adam and Eve and trees, were created mature, we may wonder whether the whole universe was created mature. If it was mature, it might in fact be coherently mature. If so, the age estimates from modern science, such as 4.5 billion years for the earth and 14 billion years for the universe, are simply coherent instances of apparent age.

According to this " mature creation" understanding, the whole universe was created only a few thousand years ago.

 

[Dizerner]

According to this " mature creation" understanding, the whole universe was created only a few thousand years ago.

I would offer some push-back and say the millions and millions of dead fossils underground, are completely unnecessary just to show evidence of maturity or age—rock layers alone would be enough to do that, why add billions of suffering and dead animals on top that apparently never even lived. And you will never find one bunny rabbit in the middle of a Precambrian strata. And all of these animals that never existed under this scenario, with their death captured eating one another or full of tumors, all fitting the ecological sphere in which they lived over time, would seem more than necessary to indicate simple age. Our natural deductive reasoning when combined with the natural laws of physics would tell us these animals actually lived that long ago.

 

[Overjoyed]

Lets not forget the gap theory, it says that there is a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation by God. Verse 2 describes a subsequent catastrophe. Verses 3–31 describe a subsequent re-creation. This approach was popularized in the notes to the Scofield Bible (1909; revised 1917). According to this view, the results of modern scientific investigation are to be fitted into the time between verses 1 and 3.

 

[Dizerner]

it says that there is a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Yes, that gap is very significant.

The fact that God's creation began in darkness in chaos, is theologically significant here.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I believe God is Miraculous. He created man with age from day 1 as a full grown adult. Why couldn't God make the universe with age as well to confound the wise, the wisdom of this world. Also the 6 days of creation are literal days with literal events of creation that took place.

NINE REASONS WHY THE “DAYS” IN GENESIS 1 MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS NORMAL (24-HOUR) DAYS​

1. The Hebrew word yom, translated “day,” is used more than 2,000 times in the Old Testament. In 95% of these cases, the word clearly means a 24-hour day, or the daylight portion of a 24-hour day. Since this is the way the word is most often used in the Old Testament, it should be understood in this way in Genesis 1 unless there are compelling reasons to prefer some other meaning.
2. God defines what he means by “day” in Genesis 1: “God called the light ‘day’ and the darkness he called ‘night’ ” (Genesis 1:5).
3. The terms “evening” and “morning” make it clear that normal days are being referred to in Genesis 1. These terms are used in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31.
4. The numerical qualifier (e.g., “second day,” “third day”) demands a 24-hour day. This usage is found in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, 2:2, 3. The word “day” appears with a number over 200 times in the Old Testament, and in every case the reference is to a literal day.
5. God established the sun and moon “to separate the day from the night,” “to mark seasons and days and years,” and “to govern the day and the night” (Genesis 1:14-18). These passages clearly refer to normal days.
6. The Ten Commandments given to Israel were spoken by God himself, and were also written directly by God in stone (Exodus 20:1, 31:18, 32:16). Within these Ten Commandments, God described his work of creating the universe: “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” (Exodus 20:11). Since the Sabbath command is linked in this way to the creation week, the “days” of the creation week must be of the same kind as the “day” Israel was expected to rest.
7. The primary reason some people want to lengthen the “days” of Genesis 1 is to make room for the evolutionary scenario, which requires billions of years. But evolution is simply incompatible with Genesis 1, and stretching the meaning of the word “day” will not accomplish the reconciliation of the creation and evolution worldviews. They are just too different. Consider the following admission by Pattle P. Pun, professor of biology at Wheaton College. (Note: Dr. Pun writes as a theistic evolutionist.)

It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to all the hermeneutical considerations suggested by [evolutionary] science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the Fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith. (Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, March 1987, p. 14)

1. In the New American Standard Bible, Genesis 2:4 says: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” Here is an instance where the word “day” does not refer to a 24-hour day. The phrase “in the day that” is a Hebrew idiom meaning “at the time that” or simply “when” (as the phrase is rendered in the New International Version). But this usage does not invalidate our understanding of “day” meaning a 24-hour day (or the light portion thereof) in Genesis 1. In fact, a similar occurrence of this idiom appears in Numbers 7:84 (see NASB margin), which follows twelve literal days of offerings (Numbers 7:12-83).
2. II Peter 3:8 says, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” But this is a simile (a literary device used for comparison) given to help us understand the Lord’s patience, not a hint as to how we should interpret Genesis 1. The word “like” is not the same as an equal sign! Also: the word “day” is unlikely to carry a figurative meaning in Genesis 1 since it appears for the very first time there. Words are used figuratively only after their literal meaning is well established. Richard Niessen

hope this helps !!!

How do we know, or what proof has there been to assume that Day 1, A Day 2. A Day 3 etc are 6 continuous 24 hour days?

I am in the camp that says yes, certainly, creation came by way of 6 - 24 hour creation periods but say144 consecutive hours
is a stretch.

How do we know that after Day 1(the first 24 hour day) there was not some space of time before A Day 2 ( A second 24 hour day) came about...then possibly a space of time and then came A Day3 etc.

I just see no reason why , when they talk of creation days by number and not by name (ie Sunday, Monday etc.) we have to hold things into 144 hours back to back.

What am I missing?

 

[Angelo]

I would offer some push-back and say the millions and millions of dead fossils underground, are completely unnecessary just to show evidence of maturity or age—rock layers alone would be enough to do that, why add billions of suffering and dead animals on top that apparently never even lived. And you will never find one bunny rabbit in the middle of a Precambrian strata. And all of these animals that never existed under this scenario, with their death captured eating one another or full of tumors, all fitting the ecological sphere in which they lived over time, would seem more than necessary to indicate simple age. Our natural deductive reasoning when combined with the natural laws of physics would tell us these animals actually lived that long ago.

It just keeps getting deeper and deeper. @FreeInChrist posted about this one,

The "Intermittent-day theory" says that the days in Genesis 1 are twenty-four hours long, but that there are gaps in time between the days. Much of the creative activity of God takes place within these gaps.

 

[Dizerner]

It just keeps getting deeper and deeper. @FreeInChrist posted about this one,

The "Intermittent-day theory" says that the days in Genesis 1 are twenty-four hours long, but that there are gaps in time between the days. Much of the creative activity of God takes place within these gaps.

Check out Hugh Ross' Day-Age theory, it's fairly interesting.

 

[Duane]

Check out Hugh Ross' Day-Age theory, it's fairly interesting.

I looked it up

The Day-Age Theory

Now we will consider approaches that do not consider the days in Genesis 1 to be necessarily twenty-four hours long. The first such view is the day-age theory. The day-age theory says that each “day” in Genesis 1 is a long period of time—it may correspond to whole geologic ages, rather than being merely twenty-four hours long. The day-age theory customarily appeals to the fact that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can be used in a range of ways:

1. The period of light: “God called the light Day” (Gen. 1:5).
2. The period of light and darkness together (twenty-four hours): “Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day” (Esth. 4:16).
3. A time of unspecified length that has distinctive character: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens” (Gen. 2:4—usually interpreted as referring to the entire time of God’s creative work); “The great day of the LORD is near” (Zeph. 1:14); “If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small” (Prov. 24:10); “For the Lord has a day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the cause of Zion” (Isa. 34:8).

The day-age theory interprets Genesis 1 as using day in the third sense, for a time of unspecified length.