A Presuppositional Young Earth Creationist

Tinkinswood Burial Chamber: Early post-Flood
Tinkinswood Burial Chamber: Early post-Flood
Tinkinswood Burial Chamber: Early post-Flood

“Why are you a Young Earth Creationist?” I often get asked. It has taken me a while to get the answer right on this. But I now know what the answer is. I am NOT a Young Earth Creationist.

Shock! Horror! Is this international creation speaker backsliding?

No. For the record, I will not budge from the biblical truth that God made the world in six literal 24-hour periods approximately 6,000 years ago.

But why do you call me a Young Earth Creationist? Because I believe the world is only 6,000 years old? So, is 6,000 years young?

Six thousand years is only a young age if you start from the paradigm that the Earth should be 4.5 billion years old. Compared to that, 6,000 years is young. It's all relative, right?

Wrong! I do not believe the world is 6,000 years because some evidence has convinced me that the 4.5 billion years is wrong – even though there is plenty of evidence inconsistent with 4.5 billion years. I believe the 6,000 years because the Bible says so, and it is my presupposition that the Bible is true. If I call myself a Young Earth Creationist, the very term “Young Earth” is predicated on the existence of the mainstream view that the earth is a lot older than that.

In the village of St. Nicholas, near Cardiff, in Wales, is one of my favorite megalithic monuments, called Tinkinswood Burial Chamber. This structure is dated by secularists at 6,000 years old. It cannot be that old, obviously, but I am willing to accept it must have been built by the earliest post-Flood colonizers of Great Britain. When you stand there, you are in the presence of something ancient. The Earth is older than that! The Earth is 6,000 years old! That is ANCIENT! The Earth is not young – unless you have borrowed from an evolutionary paradigm. The Earth is, in fact, very old. It is 6,000 years very old.

I am not a Young Earth Creationist.

I am a Biblical Creationist.


New Location for 2016
Blood Vessels in 'Ancient' Dinosaur Fossil

4 responses on “A Presuppositional Young Earth Creationist

  1. Lisa E McCall

    I like this perspective! Never thought about it that way. I have read the book Science, Scripture and the Young Earth, but from now on I will think of it from the Biblical perspective you suggest!

  2. Tony Gerbracht

    This reply explains why I see the bible does not teach that the six days of creation are six literal (24 hour) days.

    I’d like to start with a principle we both share, that being the infallibility of the bible to be God’s Word. This means that God has inspired the writers to put down the right words in the right place to convey God’s message, different verbiage in the various translation aside, the message is still what God has inspired the writers to write.

    I’d like to draw your attention to Genesis 1:14 through 18; this is the fourth day of creation and, using the English Standard Version, it states as follows:

    14. And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
    15. and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.
    16. And God made the two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night – and the stars.
    17. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
    18. to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

    In this passage we see God creating the sun and moon to give light on the earth. Our definition of a day requires the rotation of the earth on its’ axis and the sun for a point of reference to differentiate day and night. The bible does not say when the earth started rotating, but we see when the Sun was created, along with the moon and stars. God also explicitly says these are ‘for signs and for seasons, and for days and years’. This means these signs did not exist in the first three days of creation. Therefore we have no point of reference to tell time; we cannot measure the hours, minutes, seconds within the first three days.

  3. Paul Taylor Post author

    I will reply to your comment, quoting some of your text in blue.

    This reply explains why I see the bible does not teach that the six days of creation are six literal (24 hour) days.
    I will return to this point at the end.

    I’d like to start with a principle we both share, that being the infallibility of the bible to be God’s Word.

    With respect, I do not accept that we share this principle. The rest of your comment goes on to deny the plain meaning of the biblical text. I hope that you will reflect on my comments here, and develop a more healthy attitude to the Scriptures. Our belief in the infallibility of the Bible means that we submit to it, and not twist it to mean what we want. As Martin Luther said “If you cannot understand how God created the Earth in six days, then at least grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are”.

    I’d like to draw your attention to Genesis 1:14 through 18.

    With pleasure. My commentary on Genesis – which I hope you have read, before commenting here – addresses this passage in detail.

    In this passage we see God creating the sun and moon to give light on the earth.

    No – in this passage, we see God creating the sun and moon to be sources for the light which God had already created on Day One.

    Our definition of a day requires the rotation of the earth on its’ axis and the sun for a point of reference to differentiate day and night.

    God’s definition of a day does not require the sun as a point of reference. However, He had created light on Day One. Light has direction, and the context suggests there must have been a point of emanation for that light. The context is as I describe next:

    The bible does not say when the earth started rotating.

    Yes, it does. In Genesis 1:5, we read “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” This means that the Earth must have been rotating within the directional light created on Day One, because the “first day” had to be a 24-hour period.

    This means these signs did not exist in the first three days of creation.

    That is correct.

    Therefore we have no point of reference to tell time.

    As there were no humans at that stage, a reference point would be unimportant. But the evening and morning implies 24-hour rotation within a light field.

    This brings us back to the definition of “Day”. The Hebrew word is “yom”, and is used in a similar way to the English word day, with a similar semantic range. And, throughout the Old Testament (written in Hebrew) there is no place whatsoever where the word day is used with a number where it means anything other than a 24-hour day. Your attempt to interpret the first three days differently makes Genesis 1 exceptional, whereas hermeneutics demands that we treat it in a similar manner to other passages. For example, read Numbers 7. The grammar is identical to that in Genesis 1. Not only that, but we see that the Ten Commandments identifies the 7-day cycle with the 6 days of creation and 1 day of rest – see Exodus 20:11.

    For these reasons, any interpretation of Genesis 1, which stretches any of the creation days to more than 24-hours, or suggests that they are not defined, is in error, and is logically inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.

  4. Tony Gerbracht

    I will reply to your comment, quoting some of your text in blue.
    I don’t have the luxury of font colors so I will preface my response to your comments with . Again I’ll be using the English Standard Version for my quotes of Scripture.
    This reply explains why I see the bible does not teach that the six days of creation are six literal (24 hour) days.
    I will return to this point at the end.
    I’d like to start with a principle we both share, that being the infallibility of the bible to be God’s Word.
    With respect, I do not accept that we share this principle. The rest of your comment goes on to deny the plain meaning of the biblical text. I hope that you will reflect on my comments here, and develop a more healthy attitude to the Scriptures. Our belief in the infallibility of the Bible means that we submit to it, and not twist it to mean what we want. As Martin Luther said “If you cannot understand how God created the Earth in six days, then at least grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are”.
    I’m sorry we don’t share this principle. It seems strange to me that the God who knows the heart and mind of man and gives each man specific gifts would not also make sure that the writers put down what he wants. Plus He would make sure that the translators translate the word into the target language correctly to maintain the meaning. I don’t think using ‘you’ instead of ‘thee’ or ‘thou’ changes the meaning of the text. Concerning Martin Luther, it is obvious that God used him as an instrument to bring about the Great Reformation, but I don’t think Martin Luther was perfect or infallible, he was a sinner just like the rest of us.
    I’d like to draw your attention to Genesis 1:14 through 18.
    With pleasure. My commentary on Genesis – which I hope you have read, before commenting here – addresses this passage in detail.
    In this passage we see God creating the sun and moon to give light on the earth.
    No – in this passage, we see God creating the sun and moon to be sources for the light which God had already created on Day One.
    I think we’re actually saying the same thing. I did not mean to imply that God created light on this day, we agree that light was created on the first day. The bible states that He created the Sun and moon as the source light for the earth on the fourth day. They are to be for signs of ‘Days and Years’. Also he created the stars, which means that the stars did not exist on the first three days of creation.
    Our definition of a day requires the rotation of the earth on its’ axis and the sun for a point of reference to differentiate day and night.
    God’s definition of a day does not require the sun as a point of reference. However, He had created light on Day One. Light has direction, and the context suggests there must have been a point of emanation for that light. The context is as I describe next:
    You misunderstood what I am saying. The earth rotates on its axis just once within one day. The Sun is there to differentiate between ‘the light which He called day and darkness which He called Night’ (Genesis 1:4)
    The bible does not say when the earth started rotating.
    Yes, it does. In Genesis 1:5, we read “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” This means that the Earth must have been rotating within the directional light created on Day One, because the “first day” had to be a 24-hour period.
    Not possible, the earth did not exist on the first day. The following is what Genesis 1:2 through 5 states;
    2. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
    3. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
    4. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
    5. God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
    Verse two states that the earth did not exist and nowhere is it stated that the earth was created in this passage, therefore is no rotation on its axis. This is the plain text of the Scriptures. That the earth existed in day one is an invalid assumption on your part. God does not need for there to be an earth for Him to cycle between day and night any more than He needs the sun.
    This means these signs did not exist in the first three days of creation.
    That is correct.
    Therefore we have no point of reference to tell time.
    As there were no humans at that stage, a reference point would be unimportant. But the evening and morning implies 24-hour rotation within a light field.
    I disagree because this was written for humans, to be read and understood, as it was written for our instruction.
    This brings us back to the definition of “Day”. The Hebrew word is “yom”, and is used in a similar way to the English word day, with a similar semantic range. And, throughout the Old Testament (written in Hebrew) there is no place whatsoever where the word day is used with a number where it means anything other than a 24-hour day. Your attempt to interpret the first three days differently makes Genesis 1 exceptional, whereas hermeneutics demands that we treat it in a similar manner to other passages. For example, read Numbers 7. The grammar is identical to that in Genesis 1. Not only that, but we see that the Ten Commandments identifies the 7-day cycle with the 6 days of creation and 1 day of rest – see Exodus 20:11.
    For these reasons, any interpretation of Genesis 1, which stretches any of the creation days to more than 24-hours, or suggests that they are not defined, is in error, and is logically inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.
    Have you never heard a statement such as “In George Washington’s day, they didn’t have automobiles”? In that context, day does not mean a 24 hour period, but a person’s lifetime. My understanding of the Hebrew word ‘yom’ is that it can mean a 24 hour day, but also it can mean simply a period of indeterminate time. I subscribe to the second definition in the context of creation because of the reasons I’m mentioning in this discussion. Not only for the first three days of creation, but all seven days mentioned in Genesis chapter one. For ‘The Lord detests dishonest scales, but accurate weights are His delights’ (Proverbs 11:1), and ‘The Lord detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please Him’ (Proverbs 20:23). God is not going to change the definition of day in the middle of creation week so if the first day is indeterminate, then all of those days will be indeterminate.
    Genesis 1 is exceptional, for it was there that God create the heavens and the earth. Just because the grammer maybe the same, that does not mean you read it the same way. You have to look at the context of the passages. In the case of Exodus 20:11, the context is the Ten Commandments, specifically remembering the Sabbath day and God’s command to rest. The reference to the days of creation is an analogy, an example of when to work and when to rest, not a definition of what a day is. I don’t consider hermeneutics to be infallible like the Scripture is. If it drives you to the wrong conclusion, there is a problem. Just because a number is prefaced to the word day, it does not mean that it defines the day to be 24 hours, it just means there is a referential chronological sequence.
    We need to be careful on what we are discussing here because this discussion avoids the true purpose of Genesis 1. The true purpose of Genesis 1 is to introduce us to God and what he did, not how he did it. If you want to continue believing in the literal days of creation, go ahead, as incorrect as I believe that is. Believing one way or the other will not get you into heaven or send you to Hell. Believing and trusting in God or not, will. This is the healthy attitude to Scriptures.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*