Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Is It Really About the Age of the Earth?

A few months ago, a well-known apologist who believes in an old earth but had visited the Ark Encounter mentioned me and his visit to the Ark on his podcast and said that young earth creationists (like myself) should be willing to discuss the issue of the age of the earth and not refer to old earth creationists as “compromisers.” So why do I, and the Answers in Genesis ministry as a whole, continue to stand boldly on a young earth and assert that old earth teachings are indeed compromising God’s Word?

It’s because the issue isn’t really about the age of the earth at all (that’s why we do not primarily call ourselves a young-earth creation ministry). The issue we’re on about is biblical authority.

You see, ideas regarding evolution and millions of years don’t come from the text of Scripture. Just starting with God’s Word and no outside influences, you won’t find a hint of long ages or evolution! Those ideas come from outside the text, and then Genesis is reinterpreted in light of those ideas from outside Scripture. So the issue really is “Who is your authority?” Is God and his Word your authority, or is man your authority and Scripture gets reinterpreted in light of man’s ideas?

Now, many people don’t like being told they’re compromising God’s Word because of what they believe or teach. But they are! When someone accepts millions of years or evolution, they are making man—not God—the ultimate authority, and that is compromising biblical authority. And it just leads to more compromise!

I’ve had Christians tell me we should not use the word compromise when talking about those Christians who accept an old earth of millions of years. But the reason they don’t want us using that word is because they don’t want to acknowledge it is a biblical authority issue. So many want us to concede that people can have different views—but there’s only one correct view, and that is God’s view as clearly outlined in his Word.

It shouldn’t be a shock to anyone that those who compromise the Bible’s clear teaching on marriage, sexuality, gender, abortion, race, and more have already compromised Genesis in regard to the age of the earth and creation. They’ve already reinterpreted God’s clear Word, so why stop there? After all, what we as Christians believe about marriage, sexuality, gender, abortion, race, and so on are all grounded in . . . Genesis! So if Genesis is not literal history, why should we trust what it teaches about the morality that’s grounded in that history?

And if we can start outside of God’s Word with man’s word about the age of things, why not start outside of God’s Word with man’s view of sexuality and marriage, etc.? Once the door is unlocked to reinterpret God’s Word with man’s fallible word, it puts one on a slippery slide of compromise throughout Scripture.

So the reason we talk about the age of the earth isn’t because of the age of the earth itself—it’s a consequence of our stand on biblical authority!

by Ken Ham on May 3, 2024
Featured in Ken Ham Blog

Just pitting the Truth of God against the lies of men.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Carazaa · F
Either we believe the Bible or we don't. Either we trust in God or we don't. It is frightening how many don't trust Gods word.

2 Timothy 3:16

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Carazaa That's because most Christians believe the stories are allegories that reveal a far more profound spiritual truth.
@Carazaa Even if you're a believer (I am agnostic), some parts of the Bible - such as "4 corners of the Earth" - are clearly figurative or allegorical; non-literal. So it's a question of how much you put under the non-literal umbrella. A number of people consider the 7-day creation allegorical. That doesn't impugn the moral teachings in any way.
Carazaa · F
@ElwoodBlues Very true, however God uses specific language when he is specific. "Evening and morning and the first day"; "evening and morning the second day," etc. clearly means God created the world in 6 literal days and he rested the 7th. I am glad you think there is some moral teachings in the Bible, although you doubt there is a God. Why do you doubt? Or maybe you doubt there is no God?
Carazaa · F
@JimboSaturn
Certainly, "Jesus spoke in parables and without a parable he did not speak." which all have profound spiritual meanings. But that doesn't mean that there aren't parts that are historical that reveals his love also. Part of Gods mystery is figuring out exactly what he is communicating to us in a chapter. I for one believe that everything has a meaning, even numbers. And God revealed to specific people who loved him when Jesus was to be born, to the very year. And when the temple was going to be destroyed, and when the Jews would be scattered all over the world, and when they would be gathered back to their homeland again. And he is specific about the signs of the end, when Jesus will come back and give us everlasting peace, no more war, sickness, or pain, if we love him.
God is in Control of the world. We need not fear. The Bible is just amazing. Don't you think? 😊
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Carazaa Well isn't it obvious that Genesis was an oral tradition written long before anyone knew a single thing about science? It's an Mesopotamian myth like any other stone age or bronze age myths all over the world. Taking it literally is actually downgrading it to a silly myth like Thor or Appollo. Your Christianity is waaayyy too small for me.
@Carazaa
Or maybe you doubt there is no God?
I doubt both existence and nonexistence of deity.

I know a number of believers, including some elderly Jesuits who have lived vows of poverty and spent decades studying scripture. They don't take the 7 day creation literally, and based on their thinking, I don't see it as a necessary belief.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@ElwoodBlues Every Christian I know does not take Genesis literally. It most certainly is not a necessary belief to be a devout Christian. In fact it is canon now.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@JimboSaturn
Every Christian I know does not take Genesis literally. It most certainly is not a necessary belief to be a devout Christian. In fact it is canon now.

I don't know what 'Christians' your talking about, but, every True Believer in Christ that I know believes the Word of God is the only solid Truth from Genesis to Revelation.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@GodSpeed63 Every single Catholic and Protestant of every denomination. Well Genesis isn't the word of God, it was written by people 4,000 years ago to try to explain the universe. They were bronze age, illiterate, ignorant of science people. All Biblical scholars outside of your narrow viewpoint don't believe that God dictated Genesis to an unerroring stenographer..
@JimboSaturn He posted a fine instance of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy though, didn't he🤣😂🤣😂
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@ElwoodBlues Yeep basically he is defining Christian with believe in his beliefs. I think he is so brainwashed he can't understand that fallacy though.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@ElwoodBlues To help him understand:
No true Scotsman fallacy example
Person 1: No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!
Person 2: But my friend Duncan likes sugar with his porridge.

Person 1: Yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
@JimboSaturn Person 2: But Duncan's ancestors on both sides served with Robert the Bruce in the glorious battle of Bannockburn!
Person 1: I have re-defined "true Scotsman" to entail lack of sugar in porridge, regardless of clan, regardless of ancestry.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@ElwoodBlues The the funny thing is he literally said the fallacy verbatim! I've actually had the same convo with another member. She basically said the belief in Jesus being the Son of God and following his teachings isn't enough to be a Christian.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@JimboSaturn Sugar in porridge is more important than anything else.
Carazaa · F
@ElwoodBlues
“Enter by the straight gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many go there.
Because straight is the gate and narrow is the way, that leads to life, and few there are who find it.” Matt 7:13-17
Either we are born again or we are not. No one who is born again dismisses Genesis or any other word from the Bible. It is all inspired by God. Even Satan trembles at the word of God.
Carazaa · F
@JimboSaturn God taught Godly men his science theories! Almost all Nobel prize winners come from deeply Christian families. God created the universe by speaking it into being. God is brighter than you or I. Can you create a universe even if you have billions of years to do it? God did it in 6 days WOW He is amazing don’t you think? He is a miracle worker! Other wise tell me how he did it you science genius?
Carazaa · F
@ElwoodBlues
I have re-defined "true Scotsman" to entail lack of sugar in porridge, regardless of clan, regardless of ancestry.

Sugar in porridge is more important than anything else
@JimboSaturn

You clowns are something else 😏
One man defines Christianity and that is Jesus. Cultures change, but truth never changes. The Bible is defined by God, not us, it never changes. Jesus defines what is a Christian. The same yesterday, today, and forever. There is such a thing as absolute truth. It is not up for debate, or changes with our feelings.
So now you know! 🤨
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@JimboSaturn @ElwoodBlues
Every single Catholic and Protestant of every denomination.

Those people are not Christians, just religious people who claim to be Christians. God hates man made religion which is why I don't belong to any of those groups.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Carazaa So you can't really argue our logic. Yes believing the Jesus was the Messiah or the Son of God is how you define Christian, not literal belief in Genesis. You are placing importance on the sugar instead of being Scottish. Can you not see the logic?
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@GodSpeed63 Again the true Scotsman fallacy.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@JimboSaturn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Carazaa How about just use logic instead of quoting the bible, again that is a fallacy called circular logic.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@JimboSaturn
Again the true Scotsman fallacy.

Again, the true evolutionist fallacy.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Carazaa We have a clear record on who discovered science, it was people not God. And the comment that all the Noble Prize winners were Christian doesn't mean that the Christianity made them good scientist! Another terrible error in logic! And again the true scotsman fallacy with 'you have to born again to be Christian"