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 »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
What drives Ham?

Why do his type try so desperately to run campaigns to push their own narrow opinions onto everyone, despite most Christians and probably many Jews and Muslims knowing the six-day fable is purely allegorical?

To call anyone who does not believe him, a liar?

Does he sincerely believe in Biblical literalism (a stance that unwittingly but implicitly insults not only the ancient Hebrew authors' intelligence but also their God)?

Or is he playing a shabby, childish little power-game, wanting to manipulate people in the only way he knows?

I wonder what people like Ken Ham are like in the real world, how they behave towards work colleagues, friends (if they have any) and family (if they have not driven those away)?
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@ArishMell He is British right? I didn't think Biblical literalism was a thing in the UK; I thought it was a southern US thing.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@ArishMell I think he truly believes it because his faith is based on stories instead of more nuanced spirituality.
@ArishMell What drives Ham? Insanity
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@JimboSaturn You could be right: only he really knows.

What worries me is not a head-in-the-sand approach to both the faith and to learning by individuals (that's their choice), but the concerted efforts by some campaigners like Ham and that "Ark" centre to enforce their twisted interpretation of the Bible on others.

Their position is supremely illogical and ironical too: they insult the God they think they are defending from people they despise for wanting to understand what are presumably God's works; and they use the Internet so rely on the science they despise, to do so!
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@ArishMell I think their faith is so shaky that others believing in something different threatens them and they must convert them in order to feel secure in their belief; but who knows why they feel a need to obsess about literalism.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@JimboSaturn Correction, I looked him up he's Australian.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@JimboSaturn Fear, perhaps?

They certainly seem unable to grasp that if you believe in the Hebrew god called "God") there is no reason for you not to follow modern scientific learning that is itself theologically neutral (it has to be), but enhances rather than undermines the grandeur and beauty of His works.

Excessive literalism over an unknown scribe's belief merely turns poor old God into a sort of celestial conjuror and dismisses vast swathes of God's work as lies, hence cheapens Him.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@ArishMell I agree, literalism turns God into a very colloquial God of the mid east instead of the God of the universe. Their God is too small for me.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@JimboSaturn Of the Middle East... Yes, and originating in what was a very small, tribal society living in the Middle East a few millenia B.C.; and adopting older or maybe imported ideas as their own.

(At least one influence was the Zoroastrian faith, a major religion at the time but now very minor - although apparently still respected in its own home, Persia / Iran.)

I think those ancient Hebrews saw their God as far more than colloquial, but as creator and controller of whatever it was they understood of the Universe in their own time.

Only modern-day, unimaginative literalism abandoned by most Christians long ago but invented anew in 19C America, that shrinks God and the Universe. Invented for shallow power over others, and in some cases to make money from it.

..

By pure chance an example of literalism's weakness came this morning, on BBC Radio Four's Today programme's Thought For The Day slot.

(This is a daily, brief religious sermon, and not only from the many Christian denominations. We also hear Jewish, Hindhi, Sikh and Muslim clerics too. Even if you are not religious, it is worth listening to this, and the Sunday morning, all-faiths, theological version of Today, to gain some understanding of others' beliefs and actions.)

Today is Ascension Day in Christianity, and the essay explained that whatever actually happened is not mentioned in two of the Gospels, is set in Bethlehem in another, and elsewhere in the fourth. What matters of course is the spiritual message.

I thought, if four supposedly contemporary observers trying to promulgate Jesus' teachings cannot tell us what happened to him, and where....

The speaker? Angela Tilbury, Canon Emeritus of Christ's Cathedral, Oxford.

So a professional priest and theologian; who understands Christianity, its Judaic roots and the Bible - and very likely understands Judaism, Islam and the main Asian faiths too.
Carazaa · F
@ArishMell There will be very, very few in heaven. As Jesus said, " Many will have preached in my name, but I will say in that day, I never knew you" Either we live for heaven, or this world. Either we love our enemies, or we hate them, either we take God seriously or we chuck the Bible in a corner and excuse our sin.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@ArishMell That is so true! You hit the nail on the head. Early in the Christian church, the idea of resurrection and divinity was taken more figuratively as well; a transformation of spirit, I think in the Coptic versions.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@ArishMell On your point of Ken Ham and other literalists Christians making a tidy profit from their flock, Carazza actually has a post where she didn't pay her bills but gave her money to her church. Miraculously, she got money somehow and proclaimed that she was rewarded by God. But what if she didn't? She would basically then have stolen from the people she took services from.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@JimboSaturn Oh, and here's me thinking theft is a sin and Jesus took rather firm action against a bunch of usurers!
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@ArishMell @JimboSaturn @22Michelle
What drives Ham?

The Holy Spirit of God and the love of God's Truth and a desire to see people reconciled to God, the Father through Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 I don't see anything wrong with believing in God as some sort of creative force or being, but wilfully denying modern knowledge of God's works seems just so illogical and if I were religious, frankly blasphemous.
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@ArishMell
I don't see anything wrong with believing in God as some sort of creative force or being, but wilfully denying modern knowledge of God's works seems just so illogical and if I were religious, frankly blasphemous.

Neither am I religious, and I'm not denying any modern knowledge of God's work, just recognizing where that modern knowledge came from.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 You are not religious? Really?

Or do you mean you believe in the Abrahamic God but do not belong to any formal faith or denomination? I can understand that.

I am not clear what your second statement means.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@ArishMell He is saying that all knowledge comes from God.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@JimboSaturn I suppose so if you believe God created everything - including the Laws of Science that allow us to study His Creation, and the human brain to be curious about it, and endeavour to learn it.

Pity that Han has not learnt much of it!
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@ArishMell
You are not religious? Really?

Does one need religion in order to have a close relationship with God?