23 | Kathy
July 15, 2009 at 9:18 pm

Actually, I enjoy C.S. Lewis — what I’ve read of him — primarily the Chronicles of Narnia, Surprised by Joy, and a few minor works.

I think that CMI is just being strong, in a good sense, in what they believe, rather than being wishy-washy. Would that more Christians would be bold in what they believe! Not to say that it is always the right course of action to take — to say that we should shove “the truth” in people’s noses — we are to be “wise as serpents but harmless as doves” — but it makes no sense for them to say, “There is this great body of evidence” [which you refuse to even look at, unfortunately for you] “to uphold what Genesis literally says, evidence which we believe to be clear and convincing; but we want to be open-minded, so we’ll equivocate on our beliefs, so that we can have a big tent.” It would be like inviting a Muslim to speak about Allah during “Campus Crusade for Christ” or “Promise Keepers” or some other Christian organization or meeting.

You really should read the book “Refuting Compromise” that I mentioned earlier. As well as read the many links I sent you about the problems of the Big Bang. You would not expect evolutionists to go trumpeting about the weaknesses of their pet theories, so you need to talk to those who are skeptics of the evolutionist position to find the weaknesses.

Yes, I sometimes read pro-evolution things, but evolution is not that big a deal to me; my hobby is birth, so that tends to take up most of my spare time. I do read things that are antagonistic to my opinion in birth, for the purpose of finding weaknesses in my own stance.

There’s no point in repeating myself, but just in case anyone scrolls down to the bottom w/o reading most of the above, I will reiterate: two main problems arise from discarding the literal interpretation of Genesis and substituting theistic evolution — that is, accepting the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe over the course of billions of years, and a gradual change from inanimate matter to a single cell which eventually gave rise to all forms of life over the course of millions of years — and that is, the problem of death prior to Adam’s sin (while Romans declares death to be as a result of sin), and the formation and existence of stars billions of years ago, prior to the existence of the earth, which is directly contrary to the Genesis account.

25 | Kathy
July 15, 2009 at 10:49 pm

In a previous statement, you said that “the best science we have shows that the universe is billions of years old,” and I brought up several links that show distinct problems with the theory that the universe is indeed billions of years old — that there are things that ought to exist and be quite numerous, perhaps, if the universe is as old as they claim (but don’t), and things that ought not exist (but do) if the universe is as old as the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are true. Yet you continued to claim that you had yet to see evidence of such… so I naturally assumed that you refused to look at the evidence.

Actually, I don’t discuss this topic with too many people, particularly those of a “theistic evolution” bent, and since this isn’t a high priority or hobby on my list, I don’t seek out theistic evolutionist sites to discuss it. Most of what I’ve read have been things like Heeren’s book, which don’t attempt to answer these questions, being concerned with other topics. You are one of the few theistic evolutionists I’ve actually encountered (perhaps the only one — most evolutionists are atheistic, so it has been pointless to discuss the Bible with them and the order of creation), so I have actually never had those questions answered.

Here’s my main blog and that which takes up most of my spare time (in addition to reading other blogs, and emails, and other such stuff — mostly related to birth).

27 | Kathy
July 16, 2009 at 1:05 am

LOL — I don’t mind if you don’t mind!

Some people are deeply committed to the idea that the way a baby is born and also treated in the first few days after birth has a profound impact on how s/he reacts to and looks at the world. It’s a pretty fascinating topic, and I can see arguments on both sides. Have you found that you felt more bonded to her than your other children, perhaps due to that long early neonatal time of holding her? (Just an informal poll.) Many people have testified that they feel closer and/or more bonded to their children based on these experiences — mothers who had an unmedicated birth versus a medicated one, or a vaginal birth versus a C-section; or fathers who attended their wives in labor, perhaps receiving the baby upon birth, versus not even being able to be in the room — that sort of thing. It’s especially curious to see this view from someone not a “birth junkie” — not necessarily the bonding, which I’m reading into, but just the effect of the C-section — and it lends credence to the idea.

You may be interested in looking up studies on epigenetics and also Dr. Michel Odent (French obstetrician), who has spent some portion of his long career in exploring the possible long-term effects of prenatal, intrapartum (during labor) and early neonatal experiences on the baby. There is more than just a touchy-feely component to this, too — there may be strict scientific/medical justification for this — the interplay of hormones in labor that may serve to prime a baby to better respond to life stresses; the rhythmic contractions themselves may better prepare a baby for breathing; being squeezed through the birth canal may be yet another physical method of change or “priming”. Babies born by C-section may miss out on some of these things, that may be beneficial.

Ok, gonna stop! That’s the problem — I could type for hours on subjects such as this. And do — which is why I have so many blog posts! But I will force myself to stop. Feel free to read as much as you want to in my blog – I’ve actually got a post brewing in my mind from some links I’ve recently read, about this whole topic. I probably won’t write it for another week or two, but it could be quite interesting.

29 | Kathy
July 27, 2009 at 3:13 am

Paul,

Welcome to my blog! (You get extra points for using “aver” in a sentence — it is a favorite of mine, but so rarely used.)

You are right about the “separate issues” of the book — that this book is primarily cosmology (about the Big Bang), with things relating strictly to earth (fossils and all that) are beyond the scope of the book. Yet, Heeren does introduce it in the final chapters (the last time I read it was right before writing the initial post, so it has been a year and a half for me as well), confirming as truth what anti-theistic scientists say about the history of the earth (as they do of the history of the universe)… except sliding God in edgewise, imo. But the necessity of accepting what “scientists” say about the Big Bang also requires the acceptance of millions of years on earth and evolution, just like the atheists say (but “sugar-coated” with God). They are separate issues but joined, because with no need for long ages of time for the universe the need for long ages of time on earth likewise disappears; and vice versa.

I can agree to a point about the theory of relativity. There are some 6-day creationists (and by “day” I mean 24 earth-hours, not long ages of time being as a day in God’s economy of time) who also have theories that run along this line — that time slows down as you approach the speed of light, so it could be only a day or a few days here and billions of years there. This could be accomplished by “God stretching out the heavens” which is said repeatedly throughout the Bible, both in the Creation account and in the Psalms. God exists outside of time, above time; so there is no need to say that it was “just a few days” for God even though it was millions and billions of earth-years.

But you’re right — let’s not argue science, but Scripture. I am aware of the “gap theory” argument that the Hebrew word translated “was” in “…the earth was without form…” *could* be translated “became.” First, that appears strained — are there any eminent Hebrew scholars that choose that translation, other than those who are trying to force a space of millions of years in this space? Since I’m not a Hebrew scholar, I will link to this pdf (starting at p. 4/13), which says:

“5. It is grammatically impossible to translate the verb היה (hayah) as ‘became’ when it is combined with a vav disjunctive—in the rest of the Old Testament, vav + a noun + היה (qal perfect, 3rd person) is always translated, ‘was’ or ‘came’, but never ‘became’. Moreover the qal form of היה does not normally mean ‘became’, especially in the beginning of a text, where it usually gives the setting.

“6. Also, the correct Hebrew idiom for ‘become’ is to attach the verb ‘to be’ היה (hayah), e.g. ‘was’, to the preposition ‘to’ (Hebrew ל le). The verb ‘to be’ does NOT mean ‘become’ without this preposition. Since Genesis 1:2 lacks the preposition, it cannot mean ‘became’.”

Here is an online Bible that has a literal word-for-word translation of the OT which I’ve found to be quite interesting, and they translate it as “was” also.

I don’t know that there is as much of a space or difference that you imply in the term “distinctly separate creative act.” First, I’m not so sure what you’re saying when you highlight, “Then God said…” and ask why the first day should be any different. The “then” implies a continuation of acts from one to the next (first I put on my shoes, then I tie them, e.g.); if there is a gap between Gen. 1:1 & 2, why is there not a gap between every other verse in the creation week as well? If you’re pointing out the difference between “God created the heavens and the earth” and then speaking various things into existence — i.e., why is it not said that God spoke and the heavens were created — I will point out Gen. 1:20-21, in which the creation of birds and other creatures are said twice — once by God speaking them into existence, and another time it said that He created them. Obviously, these are not two separate acts, but two slightly different angles of recording the same act. It is obvious from verses like this, as well as various NT passages in which Jesus, the Word of God, is said to have been the Creator of the world, and that the universe was formed at God’s command (Heb. 11:3), that God’s speaking and His creation are basically synonymous.

The Hebrew PDF that I linked to before goes on to undertake the passage usually translated “without form and void” (or something similar). You are requiring that the word “formless” be translated as “chaos” or “chaotic.” That is one possible translation of the term, but it is not necessarily the “literal translation” of it. From what I can tell of the usage of it in the Bible (Strong’s concordance usage of it) “place of chaos” is next-to-last on its possible usages, while “empty” and “formless” are the top ways to translate the word.

So, if the verse does not (indeed, my source linked to above says it *cannot*) literally read “became”, but rather must be “was,” the original creation must have been created, not “become” formless and void:

“7. The Hebrew phrase tohu va bohu ( תהו ובהו ), translated ‘without form and void’ in Genesis 1:2, is claimed by gap theorists to indicate a judgmental destruction rather than something in the process of being built. But tohu occurs several times in the Bible in which it is used in a morally neutral state, describing something unfinished, and not yet organized, but not necessarily evil. Hebrew scholars and the church have for centuries taken the view that Genesis 1:2 is not a scene of judgment or an evil state created by the fall of angels, but a description of the earth in its undeveloped state. The plain and simple meaning of what Moses says is that on the first day there was a mass covered by water, with no dry land involving features such as hills (tohu = ‘unformed’), and no inhabitants yet (bohu = ‘unfilled’). The following verses simply describe the forming and filling.”

Let me give you my rendition of your view, and see if it is accurate — if there are any inaccuracies, let me know, so that I can better understand your view:
At some point billions of earth-years ago, God ignited the Big Bang which went as atheistic scientists teach, forming stars and galaxies and so forth, eventually forming also our own galaxy, solar system, and planet. God may have had a hand in this, but it was primarily just natural systems at work. At some point in earth history, God created an earth system which Satan corrupted, leading to millions of years of death and destruction (as evidenced by the fossil layers). Then, starting at Gen. 1:2, God re-created the earth in six earth-days, pronouncing it “good” and “very good.”
Is that an accurate assessment?

Problems I have with that — other than the eisegesis required as opposed to exegesis — include the following objections:
1) It still has the formation of the stars, sun and moon much prior to the Biblical account of their creation on day 4, and in conjunction with the light they now produce, as opposed to separate, which is how the Bible describes them.
2) God called His completed creation not just “good” but “very good”; yet you say that just beneath the surface of Eden lay the bones of destroyed carnivorous animals (which I assume God created sometime after 1:1 and before 1:2). This, in effect, calls death and destruction “good” or “very good,” since God was pleased with His creation when He completed it. It also implies that Satan and his rebellion were also contained within the “good” creation that God saw.
3) The fossil record shows numerous animals that are identical (and many other that are very similar) to animals that currently inhabit the planet, or only recently became extinct. If the animals in the fossil record which were (you say) destroyed because of Satan’s rebellion — if they are identical to the animals created in Gen. chapter 1, why did God destroy them in the first place, only to recreate them exactly the same? God did not completely start over with Noah’s flood (do you accept the straightforward interpretation of the Flood?), but instead saved a remnant of man and animals alive to repopulate the earth. Why not save a remnant of the “gap” world’s animals alive to repopulate the earth after destroying Satan’s evil?
4) Why would God not have completely destroyed all remnants of Satan’s evil on the earth — including the millions of years of fossil remains — if He were starting over? God gave the earth and all the animals to man to rule over. Why would He give man an already fallen world? — which is what you imply by saying that God just covered up the evidence of the millions of years of death and destruction by putting a beautiful Garden on top of it.
5) Sin did not originate with Adam — Satan is the “father of lies” as Jesus said. But God did not put Satan in charge of the earth — he put Adam in charge. Romans 5:12 is crystal clear on this point — sin entered into the world not due to Satan, but due to “one man’s sin” — i.e., Adam. Eve sinned before Adam in eating the forbidden fruit, but it wasn’t until Adam likewise sinned that “the eyes of them both were opened.” And in Gen. 3, God cursed the ground, not for Satan’s sake, but for Adam’s sake.
6) Judgment from God certainly can bring death to any creatures that are in the way — just as Noah’s flood killed millions of animals who had not “sinned” like men sin. But is it not a better interpretation to say that Scripture is silent on the matter of a “primeval creation” because there is no such thing?

Here is another interpretation. Genesis is straight history (with a little prophecy here and there, of course). There was no primeval creation; no gap. God created the earth formless and void, and then formed it (by calling the dry earth together into one place), and filled it (by creating the various plants and animals and man). The creation was called “very good,” which implies to me that there was no sin at all in whatever God created. At some point after that, Satan rebelled against God and was cast down to earth, where he deceived Eve, who then gave the forbidden fruit to Adam, who ate it. [This was probably in quick succession, since God commanded the perfect couple to "be fruitful and multiply." They likely would have been at least as fertile as currently normal (unless the frequency of the human female cycle was speeded up as one of the curses of the fall), yet they obviously did not conceive a child prior to their sin (because he would have been as perfect as Adam was; yet all humans are Adam's seed and sinful). So, Satan's "window of opportunity" is likely at most to be 4 weeks.] Adam’s sin against God thrust the whole creation (everything under his purview) into sin, which is why it is now “groaning and travailing” waiting for the redemption and the restoration into perfection.

Sorry for the length of the reply, but I’m wordy. {shrug} Also, I think it is important, so I’m willing to go into depth on this topic.

31 | Kathy
August 8, 2009 at 3:40 am

Paul,

Let me break up and intersperse the comments so we don’t have to go back and forth between the various lengthy comments; my previous comments are in bold and yours are in italics.

1) It still has the formation of the stars, sun and moon much prior to the Biblical account of their creation on day 4, and in conjunction with the light they now produce, as opposed to separate, which is how the Bible describes them.
1. I believe the sun, moon and stars were part of the initial creation, “bara” in the Hebrew, of the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1. I believe When God judged the primeval order, their light was obscured from the surface of the earth.
You first have to give Scriptural proof or evidence of there being a judging of the primeval order.

Initially, this was the light of Genesis 1:3; as the process progressed, the sun, moon and stars could later be distinguished as distinct entities as depicted in Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:14 the sun, moon, and stars are “asah” in the Hebrew; they were designated by God as “signs” (among other things).
Your take on the zodiac is neither here nor there — an interesting theory, and quite possible. But there is no difference in the account of God speaking the light into existence or the sun, moon, and stars into existence, and Him speaking plants and animals into existence. Why do you not say that these things were already there, but merely came to be seen as the light that filtered through as the sediment illuminated the earth? Why do you accept the creation of plants, animals, birds, and creeping things by God on the days they were said to take place, but say, “Well, the Bible says that God spoke and it was done, but I think they were already created, and it just appeared on the earth that way”? There was no human observer for this (Adam wasn’t created until the 6th day; there weren’t any animals of any kind, either, until the following day at the earliest), so we “only” have God’s word as an eye-witness account for this. There is a difference between God creating something and something just becoming visible to… what? the trees and flowers? Finally, supposing you’re rendering of the words of the Creation account are accurate — what should God have said to have indicated a 6-day (24-hour day) creation, creating light on the first day, and the sun and other heavenly bodies on the 4th day?

2. Having the creation of Genesis 1 placed upon the imperfect but dead primordial order is not inconsistent with spiritual truth. In fact it is congruent with it. Do not we as believers have the dual nature of the flesh with the spirit, the imperfect with the perfect. Will not the incorruptible resurrect from the corruptible (1 Cor 15:42)?
Yes, but notice vv. 50, 52 & 54 particularly of that same chapter — flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and “we shall be changed,” and “death is swallowed up in victory” — not merely covered over with dirt to be uncovered at a future time and obscured — but “utterly vanquished, forever” as the Amplified Bible reads.

Skipping point 3…
4) Why would God not have completely destroyed all remnants of Satan’s evil on the earth — including the millions of years of fossil remains — if He were starting over? God gave the earth and all the animals to man to rule over. Why would He give man an already fallen world? — which is what you imply by saying that God just covered up the evidence of the millions of years of death and destruction by putting a beautiful Garden on top of it.
4. I believe my comments in #2 apply here as well. Why doesn’t God after our justification through grace by faith take us immediately to glorification? Why do we have to mess around with the process of sanctification?
Well, God obviously has His own purposes to work out “for good” for us — as Paul said, “whether to depart and be with the Lord, or to stay here for your benefit” [paraphrase]. Also, though we are saved and justified, we still have the sin nature with us ["O wretched man that I am!"] which was due to Adam’s sin, through which the world fell. Again, I will emphasize that it was not through Satan’s sin, which is what you presuppose for there to have been a pre-creation creation.

5) Sin did not originate with Adam — Satan is the “father of lies” as Jesus said. But God did not put Satan in charge of the earth — he put Adam in charge. Romans 5:12 is crystal clear on this point — sin entered into the world not due to Satan, but due to “one man’s sin” — i.e., Adam. Eve sinned before Adam in eating the forbidden fruit, but it wasn’t until Adam likewise sinned that “the eyes of them both were opened.” And in Gen. 3, God cursed the ground, not for Satan’s sake, but for Adam’s sake.
5. For the most part I agree with you on this point. I do not think there was any significant time lag between the moment Eve ate the forbidden fruit and the moment Adam indulged. On a separate note scripture describes Satan as the ruler of this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, 2 Cor 4:4). I believe he has attained this by virtue of being the usurper..

I *think* I agree with you on this point, but just to clarify my position on this point, since it seems to be at odds with other things you have said: God put man in charge of the world; when man listened to Satan’s lies instead of God’s truth, God cursed the world for Adam’s (not Eve’s, not Satan’s) sin. Since man listened to Satan, that allowed him to usurp man’s previous, God-given position in the world, and Satan became the ruler of this world. But note that this assumes that prior to man’s sin, Satan was *not* ruler of the world, which seems to be what you are saying by insisting on a primeval judgment between Gen. 1:1 & 2.

6) Judgment from God certainly can bring death to any creatures that are in the way — just as Noah’s flood killed millions of animals who had not “sinned” like men sin. But is it not a better interpretation to say that Scripture is silent on the matter of a “primeval creation” because there is no such thing?
6. I have three responses to this. First, I want to give you an analogy. The word “trinity” is not found anywhere in scripture, yet without a shadow of a doubt we believe in the triune nature of God because of what is inferred in scripture.
Yes, but I can point to numerous verses that say that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. I cannot point to other verses which indicate anything other than that the world was made perfect and man screwed it up; I cannot point to anything that implies or gives reasonable inference that there was a creation before the creation.

Secondly, according to your reckoning, when did Satan fall? When did he utter the six “I will” statements of Isaiah 14?
Well, I think that the fact that God made the creation “very good” (in His own eyes, and you know He has the highest standards), that Satan could not have fallen prior to the end of Creation Week. It is entirely plausible that God made the angels during the week of creation as well, although their creation is not specifically noted; yet they must have had some beginning — when that is, is conjecture.

As to your second question — I have long thought that the idea that the “light-bearer” is Satan prior to his fall, is inaccurate. If you read the context, it makes the most sense to have this speaking in metaphorical language of the Babylonian king — since the context is most clear that it is a prophecy (telling the future, not the past) about Babylon. Metaphorical language is often used in prophecies — see Israel’s prophecy about his sons, as an example — it certainly doesn’t mean that Judah changed into a lion’s cub, but just that he was *like* one in some ways; likewise, the king of Babylon did not literally “fall from heaven” but was predicted to fall from his lofty place as the powerful ruler of much of the known world. Which is exactly what happened. The remainder of the prophecy also literally happened to Babylon (the notes I have in the Bible at my side specifically mentions v. 23 as evidence of that).

But even if I’m wrong on that point, I would still say that when God said that everything He made was “very good,” He meant it; therefore Satan’s fall had to happen after that pronouncement but before Eve could conceive. It wouldn’t necessarily take long — it does not, in fact, take long to sin. It’s usually a very short time!

Thirdly, the reason for the layout of the creation week is to serve parabolically for the redemption of mankind…
That’s an interesting parable — I’ve never heard it before. While I would be loathe to “sell God short” in His ability to put such types and shadows in parable form in the Old Testament, I’m equally loathe (perhaps more so) to interpret plain words in a figurative way, when a literal interpretation has been given and works just as well. [I've heard that some men preach that when David picked up 5 smooth stones on his way to kill Goliath, that those correspond to the 5 points of Calvinism. That's an example of reading far too much into Scripture. Yet Paul and/or the writer of Hebrews make many inferences that are not readily apparent, so I do not necessarily dismiss such out of hand, just because they're not explicit in the NT.] However, the Law of Moses states that the Israelites were to rest because of the pattern of Creation week — just as God worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th, so they were to.

I will point out that if you are correct in your assertion that God created the sun, moon and stars with the Big Bang, prior to the “primeval judgment” which blocked the light of the sun and stars until the sediment began to settle, then that leaves God doing no work on days 1 & 4, which messes up the pattern that Moses said was the basis of the Sabbath — namely, that God worked each day for 6 days, then rested.

The rest is an argument from science, not Scripture. I will point out that numerous Creation scientists look at the evidence the secular scientists (who insist on there being no God, or if there *is* a God, He’s not allowed to interfere in the physical realm) put forth to explain the universe, the age of the universe, the age of the earth, etc., and point out numerous flaws, fallacies, hypotheses, and baseless assumptions on which they build their anti-Biblical worldview. You can go to creation.com to read more about the evidences for a young earth & young universe, and evidences against an old earth/universe, as well as numerous other fact-filled articles. Considering that all of these assumptions are built on the presupposition that there is no God, I would be even more hesitant to accept their interpretation of the evidence as fact, rather than accepting the plain truth of God’s Word. As I said earlier in this comment — if the account of creation says what you say it says, what would it look like if God intended to teach a literal 6-day creation?

Finally, what do you believe the Bible to teach about Noah’s flood? Most people who accept long ages of the earth/universe, either from a strictly anti-Biblical view or a theistic evolutionist (or theistic Big-Bang) perspective, don’t accept a literal worldwide flood that destroyed everything except what was on the ark. What is your view?

33 | Kathy
August 8, 2009 at 1:11 pm

Paul,

I agree that the secular scientists’ adherence to their best theories of the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on earth and the beginning of man’s existence ultimately fail. You seem comfortable in pointing out that the theories are ultimately fallible while still holding onto them by injecting God into the mix; I believe that the theories are ultimately fallible and should be scrapped.

However, when Carl Sagan says that the big bang occurred “billions and billions” of years ago, I can reconcile that reasonably in my mind with the literal creation account of Genesis 1 including holding to a literal 6 day creation based on the dilation of time understood from the theory of relativity.
We can agree that the Theory of Relativity can come into play to reconcile the apparent billions of years of starlight with a 6-day creation approximately 6,000 years ago. Creation.com which I’ve previously mentioned has several creationist theories along these lines that they are exploring. One of them includes the phrase repeated numerous times in the Bible about God “stretching out the heavens”, which may imply the mechanism for the stars being billions of light-years away, yet the universe being only 6,000 or so years old.

Or if some paleontologist claims that dinosaurs roamed the earth 100 million years ago, I can reconcile that with the gap theory of Genesis 1:1-2…
But you don’t have to. That’s my point. There is plenty of evidence which suggests that dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago — one of those evidences being that there have been dinosaur remains found (and other remains that are supposedly millions and millions of years old) that had soft tissue remaining in/on it, which could not possibly have lasted millions of years. Yet, instead of revising their theories — or if I may say, their dogma — on the timescale of the earth and of dinosaurs in particular, they try to come up with some alternate (and fantastic) explanation for how red blood cells and tendons could have survived for millions of years.

You see, this whole long-age earth and universe started with the “principle of uniformity”, in an effort by anti-Bible scientists to do away with God, and particularly, the God of the Bible. In a stroke, they did away with the global flood (because there aren’t any other global floods), and insisted upon slow and gradual changes as the way everything came about — at first, the layers in the dirt (such as those clearly seen in the Grand Canyon, for example) which they said, “It takes a year to lay each layer, so let’s count the layers and see how many years this outcropping took to form.” But that’s a faulty premise; and known formations — such as what happened when Mt. Saint Helens erupted 30 years ago are evidence that massive layers can be laid down in a matter of hours or days, and then a channel cut through in a matter of another few hours, days or weeks, but looking like like it took “millions of years to form” based on uniformitarianism — provide unimpeachable *eye-witness* evidence that it did not have to take millions of years for the Grand Canyon and other features to form.

But because they have the Principle of Uniformity set in stone, they base all dating methods on that — if there are fossils in lower layers, the lower layers “obviously” are millions of years old, therefore all fossils in those strata are likewise millions of years old. Then because those fossils are millions of years old, when they occur in other strata, that dates those layers to the same time period. Circular reasoning, it’s called. Then they come up with various ways of dating, but it all depends on the starting assumptions, which may be wrong; and when there are multiple dates given for the same sample material, only the ones which fit the preconceived dates are allowed. Scientists have taken samples of lava from known volcanic eruptions (in Hawaii and places like Mt. Saint Helens, which are only 20-60 years old, and we know this because of the eye-witness accounts), and had them dated by the radiometric dating methods, and have come up with dates ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Yet they’re only 20-60 years old. Which makes the dating methods themselves suspect.

the gap theory of Genesis 1:1-2, which is also referenced in Jeremiah 4:23. I can reconcile the existence of light as well as evening and morning on day 1 even though the sun, moon and stars are not presented until day 4 with how I have already described the judgment of a primeval order. I personally do not find that to be a huge distortion of the text, and it leaves no contradictions in my reckoning.
I think you are incorrect on your reading of Jeremiah 4:23 — latching onto the statement of “I looked at the earth, and it was formless and void” and saying, “See! This is talking about the creation! And look — there was judgment then.” The context is the destruction of Jerusalem — Jeremiah is seeing in a vision and is pronouncing a prophecy that Jerusalem and the whole country will be laid waste. The context includes **people** — men — who were not created until day 6, well after any supposed gap inserted between Gen. 1:1 & 2.

Also, I will reiterate that the Bible says that God *created* the light on day 1, and *created* the sun, moon, and stars on day 4 — not merely that they were *visible from the earth* at that point. So, yes, I find that to be a distortion of the text.

What do you believe is the source of light in Genesis 1:3?
God. Perhaps the first visible manifestation of the Son of God (“in Him was light” and various other verses which speak of God being light). Whether it is light emanating in a visible form from the person of God, or merely light shining on the earth from no physical body — just to prove that God can make light shine from nothing, just as He can make the world from nothing — is not said. My conjecture is as good as anyone else’s.

Ultimately, whether the universe is 6000 years old or 6 billion does not change our salvation in Jesus Christ and is not a vital doctrine worth causing division in the body of Christ… Alternatively, if someone denies the deity of Jesus Christ or His crucifixion or resurrection, I will defend those truths to the death.
Well, you will find without looking too far that numerous Christians have been led astray by both the old-earth/universe creationist compromise and the old-earth/universe evolution/Big-Bang theory. By the Christian compromisers by giving too much credence to the anti-Biblical teachings that they can see don’t coincide with the Bible; and by the secular scientists who exploit the weakness of the compromise position by pointing out that theistic evolution doesn’t hold water, Biblically speaking. Also, the secular scientists which most promote evolution/BB deny the deity of Jesus Christ and certainly deny his resurrection, and seek to lead others away from the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ. So, I think it is important. That doesn’t mean I’m judging you in any way; but I do think it is important. Many have made shipwreck of the faith, which is not to be taken lightly.

As far as the “gap” in Daniel — actually, no, I don’t think there is a gap. I know that is popular in Christian teachings, but I think it is obvious from the context that the setting is the end of Jerusalem as a city (which obviously happened in A.D. 70), and Israel as a nation, special in the sight of God — that is now transferred to Christians of any nation. I think that God made an end of Israel, just as He said in Daniel, with no significant gaps — certainly not 1900 years+.

I’m glad you believe in a literal world-wide flood. Would you not, then, expect to find tremendous evidence of catastrophe in the world, related to that? Yet, every time evidence is given of a catastrophe, you are willing to point to a primeval judgment, rather than the Noahic judgment. The Christian young-earth Creationist scientists that I am familiar with will point to the Flood as being the reason for the fossils and layers of earth, with no need for any Genesis gap.

Secular and Christian scientists deal with the same data — but the interpretation varies widely, based on the presuppositions that they bring into the work — the “glasses” they are wearing, if you will. Evolutionists see millions of layers of dirt and see millions of years; creationists see those same layers of dirt and see them deposited in the course of the Flood year. What evidences of the Flood do you see that are definitely not evidences of the primeval judgment?