Skip to main content

Believing Despite Evidence for an Old Earth?

While some areas of the Bible are subject to differing interpretations and even disputes, I reckon we can agree that our understanding is the problem; God is not a deceiver. While we walk by faith and not by sight, we are not conflicted by evidence.

Christians must believe the infallibility and authority of God's Word, but there is no conflict between it and actual science regarding the age of the earth.
Credit: Pixnio / Maysam Yabandeh
To quote the great theologian Chico Marx, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Except in cases of obvious miracles, the Bible does not contain claims that are not contravened by observed scientific facts. Yet some people think the earth appears to be old but through some kind of fideism, they believe the Bible anyway. 

Yes, we need to cling to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, but we don't need to rustle up a conflict where none exists. When someone says that the earth "looks old", what is their point of reference? The so-called scientific evidence for deep time is fraught with problems and is inferred — nobody knows the age of a planet to use for comparison purposes. In reality, there are many factual evidences for recent creation. As y'all have probably heard before, we don't have to turn off our minds to be Christians.
Some within the creation community make the claim that they would believe God’s Word about the age of the universe even if all the evidence pointed otherwise. Trusting God, no matter what, is certainly a good thing. However, then they claim that He intentionally made the universe “look old.” Did God make an old universe but describe a young one in Genesis just to test our faith?

The article is short, but I think you'll get something out of it. To read the rest, see "Believe Anyway". 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Evaluating Truth Claims in Genesis

Some people try to dismiss Genesis as myth containing spiritual truth using elements from the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews. Others say it is misunderstood, as if the Creator of the universe was unable to communicate with us. With closer inspection, we see that Genesis is a historical narrative. Credit: RGBStock /  Billy Frank Alexander The idea that the early chapters of Genesis are mythological should not be accepted by professing Christians, as there are serious problems that result. (One of these is that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to these chapters as literal history, so by denying this, one is calling them liars!) Also, there are repercussions with the gospel message. Read some classical mythology, then come back to Genesis and see the difference. Myths are vague and have a different flow, but the Bible is precise. Indeed, even the sequence of creation days is specific — a day itself is defined. Interestingly, many translations have in Genesis 1:5 less accurate by us