What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis? (Part 3)

The following series of posts are my brief answer to this question. Today I share with you part 3 of my answer:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

In conclusion, there are many things that could be said about modern science and what earth geology may or may not tell us about the age of the earth. But one thing is for certain, modern science does not regard Scripture as a reliable historical source of information and thereby neglects to address the many issues of history that the Bible does clearly speak to: 1) the reality that a global flood happened around 4500 years ago that altered the planets geology and ecology in a catastrophic way. 2) Adam and Eve were the first two humans, thus making man’s fossil record is no older than 6,000 years according to the genealogy of the Bible. 3) God created every living creature according to its own kind (the study of Baraminology). This makes the evolutionary claim of a ‘tree’ of common descent – starting from a single celled organism to what we see today – completely untenable. All of this simply means that the modern scientific ‘evidence’ for an old earth has presupposed the wrong starting points and is therefore completely unreliable to tell us the age of the created universe.

Given my argumentation above, I believe that a strong case can be made for a Biblical understanding of the creation of the universe as taking place in six 24-hours days and having occurred roughly 6,000 years ago. I commend this three part series as food for thought as you continue to study the Scriptures and submit yourself to God’s worldview.

This post concludes my three part answer to the question: What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis?

5 thoughts on “What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis? (Part 3)”

  1. What’s the difference between having “faith” and going around believing that it’s OK to drive when drunk?

    Or is there a right kind of faith and a wrong kind?

    Isn’t the right kind of faith, presuming the above is correct, merely the ordinary process of figuring out what it should be based upon, like collecting evidence, testing theories, and using logic to tie facts and processes together? Then why call it “faith”, Why not call it “science”?

    Why is it OK to have extreme doubts about widely understood, fact and observation accepted science, by dismissing it, by just calling it theory? Is religion not a theory in the same perspective? And a million times more tenuous as well?

    Austin Hook
    Milk River

  2. Faith is clearly defined in Hebrews 11: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (v.1-3, NIV)

    I encourage you to read the rest of the chapter in Hebrews 11, or even better the entire letter to the Hebrews.

    There are all kinds of distinctions within the English language for the use of the words “faith,” “believe,” and “trust.” Each time we use one of them, it is in its own context and we as readers of English must be competent enough to understand the meaning of the author’s writings or speech. Therefore, I would completely disagree with you comparison of faith with a drunk thinking it is okay to drive around drunk. He might very well ‘believe’ there is nothing morally wrong with it… but that is not Biblical “faith.”

    Faith in Jesus is produced in people by the preached word and the Holy Spirit. It is trusting in God personally and the promises He has made to His people that defines “faith” in the Christian context.

    I hope that helps address your questions.

Comments are closed.