A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

[an anarchist]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

 

[Alex22]

All the scientific disciplines suggests the Earth is very old, hell there is archaeological evidence of cultures that are older then 6000 years.

 

[epronovost]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

So basically, the world was made last Thursday looking exactly as if it were 13 billion years old approximately. If it allows you to hold on a little bit of mythology you can do whatever you want.

 

[an anarchist]

All the scientific disciplines suggests the Earth is very old, hell there is archaeological evidence of cultures that are older then 6000 years.

That's what I mean though, since science suggests that the Earth is very old, I suppose I'm wondering if a creationist holding the view that God created an old, evolved universe makes sense.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Well, we have two choices. Either there is some impossibly convoluted explanation that requires reliance on one single interpretation of something written down 2700+ years ago when they didn't have a good understanding of the world or how it worked, or we are mistaken, and things really are the way they appear.

This might be a good time to utilize Occram's Razor...

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

A beautiful soul deserves a beautiful answer.

I want you to imagine that each Jewish person is a world and that creation happens in them. Light appears, then both light and darkness are identified within them by means of the Law, and that is one 'Yom'. That yom is a time but is also a sentence, a sentence of creation 'Let there be light', and there is Light. It may not seem instantly there. It seems to take the light time to appear, but once the word is spoken it is as if the work is done though you wait for that work to be completed in the person.

First the earth is void, is shapeless and dark. Then comes holiness: separation followed by the law. Imagine this as the separation out of Egypt and the partaking of holiness ritual. The land must be taken out of the waters which are nations, separated, made holy. It must not be like other nations and must be separate, like land is from water.

What if this is not the case? What if Genesis is not talking about people and creation within them? Then it is useless no matter how accurate it may be. It becomes nothing but a book about fruits and trees and arbitrary stories about snakes, and Jesus could avoid talking about it altogether. Why bother talking about Cain's children or Adam and Eve? They become just two people, two parents with an arbitrary genealogy; and their choice to have knowledge even in the face of death is nothing but a mistake. The embrace of the Law is then a mistake. It is better to be ignorant and to not have any free will or ability to choose between good or evil, to be naked, to drool and wander about aimlessly.

On the other hand what if Genesis is not talking about the creation of planet Earth? No bad thing happens. Its just not about planet Earth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

For a deity that commands honesty, it would seem an odd turn of events to contrive a universe and an earth to look so vast in age when both were only 6,000 years old.

I suppose some could believe it. I would not, but I am not a YEC either. But belief would be the only way I know that view could be maintained.

I rather like how you set it up as an extension of an interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. Kudos on that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Ok, so let me complete that. There are reasons to view this as the 'Christian' view of the NT authors. First of all the gospels all say that Jesus speaks in parables, doesn't teach everything his disciples need to know. In fact you can read him talk about something and get a completely wrong idea of what he means, and he won't correct you. He doesn't help if you're confused by what he says. Secondly Matthew's genealogy is blatantly tweaked to show Jesus as the 42nd generation. That is, he is the generation of Israel that has been purified seven times. That is, day and night have been separated seven times. It is a picture of Genesis days of creation -- Israel being the creation.

This genealogy differs from that of the other gospel. It is to get that number 42, and I think this is all based upon Genesis being about the creation of Israel, the eventual perfection of Israel through persecutions, through people falling away, and the remnant returning. So this I think is Matthew talking about the seven days of creation. Here we are, Jesus is that final last generation, and that's what Matthew is suggesting in his genealogy though not one that is technically accurate. He's not concerned about bloodlines precision but about the concept of a perfected Israel.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

Why would god create something that looks old but isn't?

 

[an anarchist]

Ok, so let me complete that. There are reasons to view this as the 'Christian' view of the NT authors. First of all the gospels all say that Jesus speaks in parables, doesn't teach everything his disciples need to know. In fact you can read him talk about something and get a completely wrong idea of what he means, and he won't correct you. He doesn't help if you're confused by what he says. Secondly Matthew's genealogy is blatantly tweaked to show Jesus as the 42nd generation. That is, he is the generation of Israel that has been purified seven times. That is, day and night have been separated seven times. It is a picture of Genesis days of creation -- Israel being the creation.

This genealogy differs from that of the other gospel. It is to get that number 42, and I think this is all based upon Genesis being about the creation of Israel, the eventual perfection of Israel through persecutions, through people falling away, and the remnant returning. So this I think is Matthew talking about the seven days of creation. Here we are, Jesus is that final last generation, and that's what Matthew is suggesting in his genealogy though not one that is technically accurate. He's not concerned about bloodlines precision but about the concept of a perfected Israel.

You're suggesting that the creation story was an allegory rather specific for the Hebrew people, am I correct? This concept I'll explore more. I'm a Biblical Literalist personally, so I'm prone to take the events literally. That's not to say I won't explore the concept of creation being an allegory. Some brief research I did right now shows that Jesus never explicitly stated the creation concept of six days. Christian apologist websites use Mark 10:6 in which JEsus says that "God created them male and female" and say that this proves Jesus taught Young Earth creationism, but I think that may be a bit of a stretch. However, it seems Moses states the matter of creation as literal days. I dont know! Intersting to think about

 

[an anarchist]

Why would god create something that looks old but isn't?

Perhaps instead of "old" I would say "fully evolved" which I think gives off different implications. So it just doesn't look old, it is. But at the same time it's only been existence for a short time

 

[JoshuaTree]

That's what I mean though, since science suggests that the Earth is very old, I suppose I'm wondering if a creationist holding the view that God created an old, evolved universe makes sense.

So God predestined creation, yes.

 

[an anarchist]

For a deity that commands honesty, it would seem an odd turn of events to contrive a universe and an earth to look so vast in age when both were only 6,000 years old.

I suppose some could believe it. I would not, but I am not a YEC either. But belief would be the only way I know that view could be maintained.

I rather like how you set it up as an extension of an interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. Kudos on that.

For a person who takes religious texts literally, complete faith in the diety supersedes all other information that may come ones way. Personally, I know faith is the only way my beliefs can be maintained.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You're suggesting that the creation story was an allegory rather specific for the Hebrew people, am I correct? This concept I'll explore more. I'm a Biblical Literalist personally, so I'm prone to take the events literally. That's not to say I won't explore the concept of creation being an allegory. Some brief research I did right now shows that Jesus never explicitly stated the creation concept of six days. Christian apologist websites use Mark 10:6 in which JEsus says that "God created them male and female" and say that this proves Jesus taught Young Earth creationism, but I think that may be a bit of a stretch. However, it seems Moses states the matter of creation as literal days. I dont know! Intersting to think about

Something like this. What I'm suggesting is that the NT authors are treating it non-literally, not that they are saying whether its literal or not.

As for the question of whether it is literal, this is more difficult. I think in Judaism its not considered allegorical so much as parallel somehow. How I'm not sure, and I haven't pursued this topic very far of how the story interacts with time. There is a time concept I can't explain well which applies to this story. By some Jews it is considered completely real but not in our own timeline, or is timeless...possibly parallel to our own time....something like that. I don't think 'Allegorical' quite touches it.

 

[Justanatheist]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

Why stop at 6000 years ago, how do you know he did not create the universe just as you were starting your post and everything was put in your head by god to make you think the world was created 6000 years ago, once you start down the rabbit hole it never stops.

 

[Revoltingest]

Another theory…..
The 3921 gods created the universe 14 or so billion years ago, along with the physical laws to watch what would happen. They view their results thru the eyes of white mice. They don’t interfere because that would spoil the experiment.
Es ist nicht einmal wrongo pongo.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps instead of "old" I would say "fully evolved" which I think gives off different implications. So it just doesn't look old, it is. But at the same time it's only been existence for a short time

But why? Why would god make something that is so deceptive?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For a person who takes religious texts literally, complete faith in the diety supersedes all other information that may come ones way. Personally, I know faith is the only way my beliefs can be maintained.

I consider the universe to be the Word of God too. Further, I am blessed with abilities to observe, question and evaluate that universe so that I can learn about it. Some are more blessed with those abilities than I and I can learn from them. It seems like putting blinders on to consider only what a book says and one that is subject to interpretation even among literalists. I do not consider the Bible to be a suicide pact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why stop at 6000 years ago, how do you know he did not create the universe just as you were starting your post and everything was put in your head by god to make you think the world was created 6000 years ago, once you start down the rabbit hole it never stops.

Even I do not go down that hole.

 

[an anarchist]

But why? Why would god make something that is so deceptive?

Is it deceptive in itself, or do we as people decieve ourselves?