Sounds good to me. Also, they should study more of the ancient history of the entire context of Biblical source materials.

As I noted, suggesting that God created the universe and life, but that He did so in some process that took more than 6000 years, is not the same as denying the possibility of miracles. It is true that accepting science as our sole guide rules out miracles - or rather, that miracles are outside the domain of science, and therefore wise scientists do not presume to proclaim concerning them. But I'm pretty sure no-one who posts here denies miracles or considers science their sole guide.

Whether Jesus was resurrected is not a scientific question: all science could have said that he was a living 33 year old man. It is a question about a miracle: and everyone in this conversation accepts that miracles occur. Indeed, most of us, including me, believe in a God who is omnipotent and can do absolutely anything He chooses.

So the question for us is not 'Did God create?' We believe he did (I'm speaking for others here, but I don't think there are any atheistic evolutionists here). The two questions are:

(a) How did he create?
(b) When did he create?

A related question is:

(c) If he created recently (which we absolutely believe he could have), why did he choose to create so that the world has a strong appearance of being much older than it is?

Greg has part of the picture on the time scale, but it's a little bit more complicated.

The current mainstream scientific consensus timeline is something like:

1. Universe created about 14 billion years ago.
2. Solar system and Earth created about 4.5 billion years ago.
3. First primitive life on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago.
4. Complex multi-celled life on Earth about 1 billion years ago.
5. Extinction of the dinosaurs and rise of the mammals about 65 million years ago.
5. First recognisable human life on Earth about 200,000 years ago.

Creationists - including those ones here - place the events of Genesis at a variety of different positions along that time line. Despite Shane's claims, there are Sola Scriptura believing Adventists here who place the creation of the universe, or the earth, or even life, prior to a creation week 6-10,000 years ago. And he himself places the creation of the universe at some point in the distant past and only the solar system in the recent past, I think.

There are also creationists who place the whole creation of the universe only 6-10,000 years ago.

The point that reading Genesis literally is so simple anyone can do it (and, implied, come to the same conclusion) is partly refuted by this wide variety of positions among creationists.

There are people that claim to believe Sola Scriptura and yet believe Sunday is the Lord's day. So it is one thing to claim to believe Sola Scriptura and quite another to demonstrate Sola Scriptura. I challenge anyone to give me Scriptural reason to believe that we should not read Genesis literally. Show me from the Bible that the author of Genesis did not want the readers of it to read it literally. Show me that the prophets, Jesus or the apostles did not read it literally. Give me some reason from the Bible for not reading Genesis literally.

The dating of creation is based on the assumption that the genealogies of the Bible are to be read as literal. That is when the Bible says George begat Joe it means George was Joe's father. However it could simply mean that Joe was in George's linage. There could have been four, ten or twenty generations between George and Joe. Based on that concession, it seems life on Earth, according to the Bible, is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. Archeology seems to make 6,000 years too short. From what I have studied, it seems the Flood happened about 5,000 years ago. Genealogies seem to indicate at least 2,000 years of life before the Flood. So that would place the age of the Earth at about 7,000 years now.



I talk a lot about possibilities but am not dogmatic about what actually happened. I wasn't there. I do tend to get a bit dogmatic about what the Bible says but I don't see the Bible addresses the creation of the universe directly. It does directly address the creation of life on Earth. I believe the Bible allows for a very old creation of the universe including our solar system including the Earth. It is a recent creation of life on Earth that I see the Bible being specific about. Of course, the fossil record challenges that belief - not Scripture. We must decide each for himself if man's understanding of the world around us will cause us to question the clear Word of God.

[quote]The current mainstream scientific consensus...../quote]

The use of the word 'current' is very interesting in that it indicates the possibility of 'change'! From my limited understanding of science, that is exactly true. One thing that is very, very difficult for the creationist to accept, is that very word 'change' in their understanding of the Bible. Forgotten is the 'must' of growth in understanding. To be static is the opposite of all Bible teaching.

Change as it relates to the Bible is confined to Sola Scriptura. We changed from a legalistic doctrine of salvation to a righteousness by faith doctrine based on new understandings of Scripture being understood in the light of other Scripture. We abandoned the practice of eating unclean meat because of a new understanding of Scripture based in the light of other Scripture. We began honoring the seventh day Sabbath for the same reason. Myself personally, abandoned the prohibition against jewelry for the same reason.

I don't however change my belief about creation because of some extra-Biblical discovery. If we discovor something new in the Bible then we most certainly have to take a look at our old beliefs. But it must be a "thus saith the Lord."

"God has permitted a flood of light to be poured upon the world, in both science and art; but when professedly scientific men treat upon these subjects from a merely human point of view, they will assuredly come to wrong conclusions. It may be innocent to speculate beyond what God's word has revealed, if our theories do not contradict facts found in the Scriptures; but those who leave the word of God, and seek to account for his created works upon scientific principles, are drifting, without chart or compass, upon an unknown ocean. The greatest minds, if not guided by the word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to trace the relations of science and revelation. Because the Creator and his works are so far beyond their comprehension that they are unable to explain them by natural laws, they regard Bible history as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments, will be led to go a step farther, and doubt the existence of God; and then, having lost their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity." (CE, ch 24).

Or (d) God's very nature is creating and he has been creating forever and will continue to create.

mel

Good EGW quote and true, olger, but non-responsive to the point I made: each of you claims that the Biblical account is so simple and transparent that everyone of goodwill reads it the same... yet none of you read it the same.

I challenge anyone to give me Scriptural reason to believe that we should not read Genesis literally. Show me from the Bible that the author of Genesis did not want the readers of it to read it literally. Show me that the prophets, Jesus or the apostles did not read it literally. Give me some reason from the Bible for not reading Genesis literally.