I agree

Gennaro Nesso I agree.

The reason I posted this snippet from a larger article, is to show at first the lack of literalness in scripture itself and interpretation through the Millennia.

You see, the whole notion of the 6000-year-old earth as a quasi-“scientific” notion is very new – only about 250-300 years old.

In christianity, the Byzantine Elders settled on a various dates for the convenience of whoever the emperor was for calculations sake and even at the time they were well aware of the discrepancies.

It was never meant to be taken literally – they were always symbolic even then

It really wasn’t until the Seventh-day Adventists in the early part of the 20th century that you started to get any significant dogmatic belief in young Earth creationism.

There were a few before it but were a bit crackpot.

They made it go mainstream and the arguments that you see here and that Ken Ham famously proclaims originate directly from the early 20th century seventh day adventists and not before.

But for 19 centuries the predominant Christian view was that these days and dates were figurative and spiritual in nature and not literal.

To get a young Earth creationist to at least accept that the six days at creation may have been A Thousand Years each is a start.


[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.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

× nine = 36

Leave a Reply