You would think that they world have OK’d it at the beginning instead of allowing it to go so long without saying a thing and then bringing it back up when it was too late. I don’t understand it at all. ProExtender

Paul TN:

No, he’s simply reading Genesis as something other than a scientific treatise. I can’t put words into Mike’s mouth but I imagine he reads Genesis somewhat like I read Genesis, as a religious document that reveals primarily religious truths. This doesn’t undermine the authority or reliability of scripture but rather refocuses on the actual message rather than the secondary or other extraneous elements. What do I learn from Genesis Ch 1-3? God created a good creation, sin corrupted that good creation and God began the historic work of redeeming His fallen creation. I believe all of it, I just don’t try to make the Bible into a science textbook.

I’m not sure where you see the disconnect between original sin and a non-scientific reading of Genesis. The generational history you allude to doesn’t necessarily lead to the earth being very young but rather to the human race being very young. The earth may or may not be as young as humanity is. But even at that there is some question as to the complete accuracy of the geneologies, there is some room to debate exactly how old humanity is, even running back to Adam, say for example how long did Adam and Eve live in the garden before sinning?

You argue your presumption with force but your presumption is fallacious. No one said the Bible was not true or a lie, merely not a scientific work. You are imposing modern evidentialist requirements of the Bible, you are demanding that the Bible answer to your worldview rather than conforming your worldview to the Bible.

I’m curious how you reconcile the doctrine of original sin and atonement with this view. We, God’s creation, are being held accountable for Adam’s sin who God states that he created in the Genesis account. Further, we have the family records from Adam to Christ and the time of the birth of each person in between so we can tell the amount of time that has elapsed since Adam’s creation. This would make the Earth fairly young.

If the Genesis account of Adam’s creation is not true then there is no justice in God, because we should not be held accountable for the sin of someone who we have nothing to do with and are unconnected with. In addition, this makes a farce of the atonement of Christ and the fulfillment of the covenant. The very covenant that Christ came to fulfill is void if He is not a descendant of Adam. I’m thinking specifically of Abrahamic extension of the covenant promise when God spoke and said “In you all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed” speaking of Christ.

However, if this is true then why would we not believe the rest of God’s Word about the creation of the actual Earth? Why would we assume one part to be true and one part to be a lie? What criteria do we use to make that determination? If you begin to cast doubt on the reliability of God’s Word, then how can we be certain of any of it?

Paul TN

Creationism unfortunately undermines both the credibility and the integrity of Christianity and the more Christians speak out against it the better.