play4fun : "I said that heliocentrism and geocentrism does not go against what the Bible says, because there is nothing in there that proves heliocentricity or geocentricity."

It doesn't really matter that you yourself say that heliocentrism does not go against the Bible. The vast majority of people in the past and some today do say that it is against the Bible and they cite numerous Bible verses to support their claims. You say that heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is not a Biblical issue, but I think Copernicus and Galileo would disagree with you lol. The geo/heliocentric debate was most definitely a Biblical issue and the only reason it is not debated anymore is because most people actually accept the scientific evidence.
You fail to recognize that the only reason that you and I do not see geo/heliocentrism as a problem due to SCIENCE. Without the discovery of heliocentrism it is safe to assume that both of us would believe in geocentrism based on what is said in the Bible; however, the scientific discovery of heliocentrism provided us with a new context with which to interpret what was said in the Bible; therefore, by accepting heliocentrism you have set a precedent that science can provide the context used to interpret scripture.

The difference between young-earth and old-earth believers is that old-earthers continue to use science to help interpret the Bible and its context and young-earthers reject science and use their own idea of what they WANT the Bible to say to interpret the Bible, while warping and cramming science into their own narrow perspective. For example, saying the speed of light has decreased. Maybe you will try say that even without science you wouldn't think that the Bible supports geocentrism. I would say you're probably in denial.

"There is a solution to that problem that has been suggested, and that is Synchrony Convention, which has some relation to Einstein's theory of relativity"


I appreciate that you admit it's a problem. From what I gathered from your link this suggests that the universe was created fully matured and that God made the light reach the earth through divine power. I will admit this makes more sense than most theories about a young-earth, but this leads to the appearance of history debate and calls into question God's truthfulness.

Here are some problems with your theory (from http://godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html):

"There are a number of different scientific techniques and measurements that indicate that the universe and earth have a long history. For example, the red-shift of distant objects (Doppler effect) indicates that the universe is at least 14 billion years old. The most distant objects in the universe exhibit the largest red-shift values, which one would predict from a universe the Bible claims is expanding.2 Star color luminosity fitting indicates that the universe must be at least 14 billion years old.3 The decay of Uranium-238, seen in its Spectral line in distant objects shows the universe to be at least 12.5 billion years old.4 Supernova standard candles indicate that the universe is a minimum of 12 billion years old.5 Globular Clusters show that the universe is a minimum of 12 billion years old.6 Gravitational lensing indicates it is at least 11 billion years old.7 Light travel-time based on quasar-light sources indicates that they are a minimum of 10 billion years old. Cepheid variable stars are a minimum of 9 billion years old.8 Expanding photosphere indicates that at least some stars are a minimum of 9 billion years old.9 Star stream interactions in galaxies indicate that they are at least 8 billion years old. All these different ways of measuring the age of the universe come to the same conclusion - that the universe is a minimum of billions of year old. Since these measurements are based upon different techniques, it would be extremely unlikely that they are all wrong.

These studies are somewhat technical, but others use easily understandable concepts. For example, geometric measurement to the quasar 3C 279 indicates that the quasar is 5.9 billion light years away.10 Either the light from that quasar has been traveling for 5.9 billion years or God created a deceptive light that does not really exist at that point in space. Even easier to understand are the annual layers found at multiple site throughout the world. Carbonate deposits from the Great Bahama Bank, off the coast of Florida, has multiple layers over 14,500 feet thick, representing 12.4 million years of annual deposits. This is not rocket science - scientists need only count the layers to determine the period of time over which they were laid down. Deposits from the Green River are seen as annual layers of alternating Summer calcium carbonate and Winter organic layers. There are four million of these alternating layers, which could not have been formed by one single event, like the great flood. Many other examples of layer have been found all over the earth, including 420,000 year old ice cores from Antarctica.

In examining our Solar System, one needs to ask why God created Mercury, the Moon, and Mars completely covered with craters whereas there are almost none visible on the earth. Did God feel it was necessary to make these worlds look like they had been bombarded for millions of years with meteors? Was God so bored that He decided to throw millions of rocks at these bodies? Why did God feel the need to create the 110 mile diameter Chicxulub crater beneath Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula? On what creation day did He do this? Why are there large amounts of iridium in this crater, which is also found in meteors and in the sedimentary layers that demark the boundary of the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods?

If one is teaching that God created the universe and earth to look old, shouldn't he be able to cite some sort of biblical evidence detailing that God actually did this? On the other hand, if God created the universe to testify of His truthfulness, then one would expect to be able to find biblical support for that position. It turns out that there is zero biblical support that God created any part of His creation to merely look old. In contrast, David tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God and speak to the entire universe of this glory:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

Job says that the creatures of the earth and the earth itself declares that all creation is the work of the hand of the Lord:

"But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. "Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea declare to you. "Who among all these does not know That the hand of the LORD has done this, In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And the breath of all mankind? "Does not the ear test words, As the palate tastes its food? (Job 12:7-11)

Paul says that God has revealed the reality of his existence and attributes through His creation. The testimony is so strong that unbelievers are without excuse in rejecting God, even with only the testimony of creation.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Does the creation declare that one of God's attributes is that He likes things to look old, even though they are young?"

"We don't know what these lotus plants and reeds that the author was talking about, so we cannot base it off of what we know in our time. Also, the verse said that the lotus plants and reeds are where it lives or its habitat: "Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh." The point of the whole thing is that Behemoth is HUGE"

Like I said before, I'm not sure how an enormous dinosaur would find shelter in a marsh. Most young-earthers believe the earth is about 6000 years old so it should be pretty safe to assume the vegetation has not changed dramatically in only a few thousand years. So unless you know of certain gigantic species of plants that inhabited this area of the Middle East that are capable of sheltering or concealing an enormous dinosaur, then your interpretation is off. (Correct me if I'm wrong about where the Book of Job takes place)

Also, I never said the words Behemoth and Leviathan were dramatic descriptions, I said the language describing them was; for example, breathing fire, tail like a cedar, etc. If you're going to take everything literally, then you would also have to believe that horses laugh, etc. Also, the text says its tail "sways" like a cedar, which could just be indicating its tail flexible and able to bend like a cedar and does not necessarily have any bearing on the creature's size.

I also think you are misinterpreting the word local. I am not talking about a flood like in New Orleans, I am also talking about an enormous flood but a regional one. At this point in time humans had not scattered over the earth, so all humans were still eliminated. When the all life on the earth is referenced it is referring to Noah's scope of the earth at that time. I'm also not sure how the flood could have been global if there was already an olive tree growing right after the flood ended. Also look at this verse:

For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the land was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

Why does Peter say "the world at that time", why wouldn't he just say "the world" if the entire world had been destroyed. Peter is referring to the fact that the world at that time was confined to the Mesopotamian Plain.

"It doesn't have to, there are many examples in the Bible when a supernatural phenomenon happened, they don't put "God did this" in there. So I don't need to make assumptions about whether God protected them or not. We already know that God is working here when He came to Noah and tell him to make a huge boat."

Any examples of this? Yes, it SAID God told Noah to make a boat and that He caused it to rain.

I don't really know what they teach, I've only been here two semesters. It seems like they don't believe in any type of creationism, but I've never really cared enough to ask anyone because I didn't come here because of religion. I'm guessing your school specifically teaches young-earth creationism?

play4fun : Sorry I've been avoiding the board cause I've been busy and didn't want to get sucked into time consuming debates.

"Exegesis reexplained:
Exegesis is basically you read what it actually says and then get things out from what it says. An example of interpreting into the text is like you know a theory and you interpret everything according to that theory in order to fit it, instead of first plainly read it, and then know the background of the text, other information, and THEN interpret it based on those information, not from a specific idea that you have already."

Ok, this doesn't really answer my quesiton. I still don't understand why this doesn't apply to you. Do you not understand how similar this argument is to the heliocentric/geocentric argument? One side had a presupposition they forced upon the Bible. This presupposition was proven wrong and the interpretation of the Bible was altered. Can you explain how holding onto the young-earth interpretation despite overwhelming evidence against it is any different? Yes, you think heliocentrism is "trustworthy", but why is it more trustworthy than any other scientific discovery that you reject. You are still forcing a specific idea that you have on the Bible.

Also, if you don't think the speed of light has decreased then how on earth can you explain the fact that stars are billions of light years away? Surely you know that light must travel to earth for us to see it and some stars we see don't even exist anymore because they are so far away they have burned out before the light had time to reach us. I assume you know that when we see the moon we actually are seeing it at its position 3 seconds before and the sun 3 minutes before (I might be wrong about the time, but you get the idea). Obviously if a star is a billion light years away, the light from it has traveled a billion years making the universe much older than you claim it is. Of course this argument isn't credible but that's seems to be the only way young-earthers can explain this problem. Maybe you have a better explanation.

As for dinosaurs in the Bible, if they truly coexisted with humans how is it that there is absolutely no evidence of this? If they existed together why are dinosaurs found so far beneath humans in the sediment layers? I hope you don't try and use the alleged dinosaur footprints with human footprints found inside them as proof. Those are pretty obviously dinosaur footprints and they have been researched and proven to be dinosaur footprints. Henry Morris intentionally misrepresented them as human footprints even after he was shown proof and admitted himself that they were most likely dinosaur footprints. It also doesn't make sense that humans would be living in such close proximity to dinosaurs; logically they would not be walking next to them in riverbeds, they would avoid them.

I have heard this particular argument in a young-earth service that I personally attended and I watched as the entire congregation accepted it without question, so I do know for a fact that the sediment rearrangement argument is used by some.

I assume you think the behemoth described in Job is a large dinosaur like a brachiosaurus since it says it has a tail like a cedar. A plain reading of the passage will show this cannot be true or at least is extremely unlikely. It goes on to say that it lies under the lotus plants and is hidden among the reeds. Now what kind of lotus plant could provide shade to a brachiosaurus and what kind of reed could possibly conceal one; especially if its tail alone is as large as a cedar tree? It seems pretty obvious to me that this interpretation is flawed.

The language describing these animals is poetic and dramatic so I don't exactly think it should just be taken at face value. Does a horse literally laugh at fear? Are they really afraid nothing? I have horses and they are pretty easy to scare; you just have to make a sudden movement, so obviously this is just for dramatic effect just like the leviathan breathing fire. I've heard this argument over and over so I'm sure you'll probably say something about different cultures having dragon stories. Didn't both the greeks and egyptians have sphinxes? Does that mean that the sphinx is real? Why would the dragons also have such different images? Correct me if I'm wrong but the Chinese/Oriental dragon looks similar to a snake and other dragons have wings etc. Why would they differ between cultures unless they were fictional? I'm not against the idea of dragons existing, I think it would be pretty awesome if they did but it just doesn't make sense to me to believe something based on such flimsy reasoning. If you could prove dragons existed I would love it, it would feel like I was in a Harry Potter book lol.

Now, regarding the dove and the olive branch; birds cannot fly for unlimited distances, they will eventually get tired and have to rest. I would reason that the entire earth was not completely covered but the ground was not yet in the bird's range of flight. Also how could the ark land at the top of the mountain if the water had receded to the point that olive trees could grow? They cannot grow on top of mountains. How was there even enough time for the tree to grow if the entire world was destroyed? The fact that animals could not breath at high elevations and all the other facts mentioned provide the context that the water was not covering the entire earth. I do not have to assume something not indicated in the text to support my interpretation.

When there is divine intervention in the Bible doesn't the text indicate it? For example, doesn't it indicate that the Israelites clothing was prevented from detereorating in the desert? When mana falls from the sky isn't it indicated in the text that God provided it? There is absolutely no indication in the Bible that God in some way allowed the animals to breath at high elevations. By saying that divine intervention allowed the animals to breath you are adding something to the Bible that is not there based on your own theory. How is adding something not indicated in the text to fit one's theory not eisegesis? My interpretation does not add anything but uses what the Bible presents to determine what happened.

Mount Ararat does not necessarily mean the top of Mount Ararat, the only reason to believe it does is if you want to believe in a young-earth. Like I have said before if you simply use logic and do not add things that are not indicated in the text, then it is pretty reasonable to believe in a local flood.

Like I said previously "whole earth" often refers to the people of the earth, so yes the flood would be similar to the final judgement because all the people of the earth will be judged just like all the people of the earth were judged during the flood. This supports my interpretation because comparing it to the final judgement makes it pretty obvious that "whole earth" means the people of the earth when judgement is referred to because God would not judge the earth itself, that wouldn't make sense.

Also the Hebrew word "tebel" always refers to the earth on a global scale. If the flood was truly meant to be interpreted as global, why is this word never used to describe the flood when it is used multiple times describing the creation? Is it just a coincidence that "erets" which can mean a portion of the earth is used?

"Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life."
Maybe you overlooked this sentence. I don't recall any more floods destroying all life. Are we all dead? Obviously God has not broken his promise.

play4fun : "Here is what I meant by pushing science onto scripture (I don't know if this is what other people mean). When I say that, I mean that if there is something stated in the Bible that was written and meant by original intent to mean one thing, but to have a scientific theory to come up and then, in order to feel compatible and relevant to the scientific community, they change the meaning to something that was not intended to be changed."

"This is what we call Eisegesis, which means interpreting into scripture with your presuppositions and ideas already used as a lens to interpret scripture, when we should be practicing Exegesis, which means that we take everything out from scripture in context without trying to put our understanding into it."

I could throw the same argument right back at you. How exactly do you know that you aren't the one forcing presuppositions upon the Bible? Didn't geocentrists say the same exact thing to heliocentrists and was it not the geocentrists who were forcing their own presuppositions on the Bible? How do you know you aren't making the same mistake?

I honestly just can't comprehend the difference between the situation now and the situation then. I didn't expect you to read all the geocentric arguments, but if you did read them they might sound similar to some young-earth arguments. I only skimmed over them but from what I've read they seem to have an argument to answer every possible question you could ask them. Basically, they say that gravity is not enough proof and that heliocentrism is based on assumptions. I think they also address satellites. Yes, I think their arguments are ridiculous but I also think most young-earth arguments are just as bad; for example, the speed of light has decreased exponentially over time and that's why stars only appear to be far away, or the flood somehow coincidentally rearranged the sediment layers so that humans are nowhere near dinosaurs. How are these arguments any different from geocentric arguments? I just don't see it, although I'm sure you would disagree.

You also mention theistic evolution. I don't think I've tried to defend such an idea. Actually, from what I've researched it seems that the more scientists learn, the less likely evolution seems to be. Scientists believed "junk DNA" was proof of our evolution because this DNA was seemingly useless and unnecessary, so why would God have created us with useless parts? Recently, scientists have discovered that this junk DNA probably isn't junk at all, which reinforces intelligent design. Also, recent molecular biology studies suggest the first humans could have appeared as early as 50,000 years ago. This would agree pretty well with the Bible which states that its message has been heard through 1000 generations. I don't think these are all coincidences.


My whole problem is that I just don't understand why young-earth creationists think heliocentrism should be an exception to their own rule. Yes, I'm sure some of my arguments may be flawed since am I am by no means a Biblical scholar, but I don't see how what I'm saying is corrupting the scripture.

I realize the passages I quoted are after the rain had stopped. That does not change the fact that the Bible says the entire surface of the earth was covered in water just after it stated that the mountains were visible. I was just giving you proof that "whole earth" doesn't necessarily mean the entire planet. If you think about the historical context of the flood, then a local flood would make sense because humans at that time lived in the same geographic region. The whole earth could just be referring to the people's own scope of the earth or just the entire human population of the earth, which existed in the same region. I can provide examples in the Bible where kol erets (all the earth) refers to the people of the earth if you want.

Also, if the arc had been at such high elevations as you describe, how could all the animals breath? This would reinforce the idea that mountains should be translated as hills and would also suggest that the translations are skewed by presupposition to support a global flood. Sure you can argue divine intervention allowed the animals to breath but that wouldn't be very fair because I don't think there is any evidence to support that. It's certainly a possibility but arguing that would border on eisegesis wouldn't it?

play4fun : I really want to keep this going. I wish I had more time focus on this but I've been pretty busy lately. Whenever I get the chance I'll be sure to respond to some of your arguments.

I'll edit my post since I can't have two replies in a row.

play4fun: "It is very possible for both sides to use scripture to conform with science. We don't want to do that. We need to know what the verse is saying, and actually trust it."

I still do not understand how young-earth creationists justify their own belief in heliocentrism. You conveniently say heliocentrism is trustworthy, but how? I can honestly say that if I was reading the Bible without any knowledge of the concept of heliocentrism, then it would seem very obvious to me that the sun revolves around the earth. No matter how you try and spin it, you are using science to interpret the Bible, which is precisely why young-earth creationists condemn old-earth creationists. I am very confused by these contradictory beliefs.

There are even geocentrists today that argue heliocentrism has no support scientifically or scripturally. Does this sound familiar?

When reading some of these geocentric arguments, I found it extremely ironic that their arguments were almost completely identical to other young-earth arguments condemning old-earth creationists. Honestly, I found these arguments oddly convincing because I didn't know how to respond to them.
Geocentrists even have "scientific" arguments to support them. They claim that geocentrism is "pure physics, mathematically tractable, and realistic, and consistent with scripture" just how young-earth creationists claim their "flood geology" is purely scientific.
They believe that the entire world has been brainwashed by fallible science into believing heliocentrism just like young-earthers believe everyone else has been brainwashed into believing the earth is old.
They also condemn anyone who accepts heliocentrism as a heretic going against the Word of God. This sounds very familiar.

geocentric arguments: http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/fresp/index.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part6.html
http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/

Now concerning the flood. Obviously the context describes the flood as a giant disastrous event. Noah building the arc was a constant warning to the people. They had so much time to believe so that in the end they had no excuse for their mistake. Maybe God was just giving them every opportunity to have faith in Him. If Noah had simply left one day, that would not have been much of a warning to the people. Yes, God could have sent Noah on a long journey but he didn't, so you don't have much of an argument unless you think you can explain how God thinks. God does what He wants.


Also "all the earth" (kol erets) does not refer to the entire planet in most cases.

Gen 8:5 the mountain tops were now visible, but in Gen 8:9 water covered the surface of all the earth. Obviously the entire surface could not have been covered if the mountains were visible. Who's to say the rest of the flood account refers to the entire planet? Also, the Hebrew word for mountains could also be translated as hills.

bigNATE : I completely understand I am making many assumptions here about young-earth creationists (which is why I admitted that fact earlier). I fully understand that not everyone who believes in a young-earth holds the exact same beliefs. I am simply addressing some issues I have the young-earth beliefs I have personally encountered, which seem generally true from the research I have done.

First of all I disagree about your claim that an old-earth is not supported scripturally. There is actually a pretty large amount of evidence so I hope you don't expect me to type it all.

I could argue that the context of Genesis 1 strongly agrees with the long day interpretation. For example, God always says "Let there be". This would imply to me that the universe was created in Gen. 1:1 and God proceeded to "let" or allow the earth to form by the natural laws that He Himself created. That seems reasonable enough doesn't it? Why condemn someone for that?

As you might or might not know the Hebrew word yom has three different literal interpretations: sunrise to sunset, a 24 hour period, or an unspecified amount of time.

Now some people claim that Genesis days must be 24 hours because whenever the Hebrew words ereb (evening) and boqer (morning) are used with the word yom (days), yom always means a 24 hour day. This is not true. People fail to recognize that these words can also be literally translated to "ending" or "beginning". The words "and there was" are also added to make the english flow more naturally. The order of these words is pretty unusual as well, evening then morning. This seems to suggest to me that text is saying the ending of one day followed was followed by the beginning of the next. I would also say it is important that the seventh day doesn't seem to have ended. In fact, Hebrews 4: 4-11 seems to suggest that we can enter God's seventh day of rest. Therefore, the seventh day continues to the present. Again I would say these reasons are pretty reasonable aren't they?

Another claim is that the words echad yom (one day, few days, etc.) used together always refer to 24 hour days. Also not true.

Here's a link with some verses where echad yom, ereb, and boqer are used that do not indicate 24 hour time periods. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Some more evidence. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

I could also get into how young earth beliefs seem to depend on the great flood being global, while I would say that it seems to be local. I don't see how a 450x75x45 ft arc could hold every single insect, much less every single dinosaur. Again I can provide evidence if I must but I think I'm done for the day.

*Edit: I would also like to add that all I'm asking for is a little humility from young-earthers. I by no means think my interpretation is without error or that it is impossible that it is wrong. It just seems a lot more likely to me.

Hoochman : You are completely avoiding my question. Why don't you answer my question directly? Can you explain how you justify letting science influence your interpretation about geocentrism, but not letting it influence any other part of your interpretation. How are you not just as much a "compromiser" as the old-earth people you label as "compromisers"? (I'm assuming you label old-earth people as compromisers, please correct me if I'm wrong)

I fail to see any sense in this whatsoever. Most young-earth creationists seem to think every belief they have is righteous and they cannot possibly be wrong. But if even their most widely used argument is contradictory to their own beliefs, how can they be so sure they cannot possibly be wrong?

Also, please do not make blanket statements like "it makes more sense" that imply your beliefs make more sense than mine, especially if you are going to run away from the question and not provide any evidence supporting your claim. It may make more sense to you personally, but not me.

I honestly do not have any problem with young-earth creationism, but I do have a problem when people who hold this belief claim that their interpretation is the only literal interpretation supported by scripture when old-earth interpretations are both literal and supported by scripture.

In my own personal experience with young-earth creationists, the main argument I have heard used against old-earth believers is that they are "comprimisers" who "place science above scripture". They tend to argue that scripture should never be "reinterpreted" based on scientific discoveries.


The young-earth believers I am familiar with accept the scientific evidence of heliocentrism.
My problem with this though, is that this makes their own arguments become inconsistent with their own beliefs.



Before the scientific concept of heliocentrism was accepted, verses such as Joshua 10: 12-13 were cited as clear evidence of geocentrism because "the sun stood still" would obviously imply that it is moving around the earth. Thus when heliocentrism was proven, people looked to scripture and discovered that there were actually passages that imply heliocentrism and that verses like the one above were interpreted incorrectly. Science was able to shed light on how scripture should be interpreted.

My question for these believers would be how do they justify condemning others for doing precisely the same thing they themselves do? Is this not clearly hypocrisy? (I'm not trying to antagonize anyone using the word hypocrisy, it simply seems to fit. Please correct me if I am making any false assumptions or errors.)

Golvellius : Here's an interpretation of Genesis that actually agrees with science. You might find it interesting, this fully explains your question about plants and photosynthesis. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

play4fun : "Knowing this, it is apparent that the verse in question is suggesting that the institution of marriage was commanded from the beginning of the first two "CREATURES"."

"If you look at any Bible, you can see footnotes or verses on the bottom for reference or cross-referencing to other verses. This verse is pointed back to Genesis 1:27, which talks about the God creating Adam and Eve. Soo, you are right that it is suggesting the institution of marriage was commanded in the beginning, but not to the first two "creatures." It is specifically talking about human male and female."

I meant that marriage was commanded from the beginning of the first humans. I wasn't trying to say marriage was commanded to birds, fish, etc. I was suggesting that the word creation be substituted with "created things" or "creatures". So from the beginning of the first humans (the creatures being referred to) marriage was commanded. Thus, Jesus is not lying in Mark 10:6.

I guess we just interpret the Genesis account differently. I think Gen. 1:1 is actually a creative act of God and you think it is an introduction. I don't really see how the context supports the latter interpretation myself. The argument could be made that Gen. 2:1 is just summarizing the events of creation and isn't very strong evidence for your interpretation. I have seen plently of evidence suggesting that "days" are not 24 hours in Gen. and it seems pretty logical. I wouldn't mind hearing your opinions though.

The young earth creationists I've had experience with are very adamant that the earth is only 10,000 years old and anyone who believes differently is going to hell. That is why I was talking about 10 yr generations. It was my mistake for assuming you believed the same thing.

play4fun : "I can be ok with Christians are still Christians if they believe in an old earth or a young earth (even though the view of old earth would imply that Jesus would be lying in Mark 10:6)"


"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE" (Mark 10:6)

Even if you believe the earth was created in a week this verse is still a lie. No matter how you look at it humans were not created at the BEGINNING of creation but rather on the SIXTH day, the end of creation. So it is safe to conclude that you have interpreted the verse incorrectly or our Savior is a liar.

You have taken the verse out of its context; Mark 10:2-9 is in fact referring to marriage. The greek word "ktisis" which is translated to creation could be translated many other ways; for example, it can also mean created thing, creature, or institution.

Knowing this, it is apparent that the verse in question is suggesting that the institution of marriage was commanded from the beginning of the first two "CREATURES". To translate the word to "creation" makes the statement false regardless of whether or not you believe the earth is young or old; therefore, insisting that this verse has any relevance to the age of the earth means that you yourself are making Jesus into a liar.

I would also like to know how you explain the verses that say that the Bible has been proclaimed to a thousand generations (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8). Is a generation only 10 years? How could people even reproduce at age 10? The average biblical generation would be around 40 years and the first dozen or so around 900-1000 years. If you want to interpret the Bible literally wouldn't you have to believe the earth is about 40,000-50,000 years old?