Well, we know for a fact that the universe is old, and that the universe was not created in six days. Those are givens and not even in dispute. GOD tells us that in what She wrote, the universe itself.
The question then is why did the various authors of the Bible include differing and mutually exclusive tales about creation?
No they are not in dispute. No one who is not either ignorant, deluded or lying believes in a Young Earth.
As to Answers in Genesis, they fall into the category of liars.
It does not require time dilation or anything more than the most very basic common sense to know that the stars are very far away. If al of the stars were within a 6000 light year distance from the Earth, life would simply not exist. Sorry, AIG is simply laughable.
Or perhaps you believe that the Earth is old based on the uniformitarian geological time scale which basically states that because geological strata form slowly today they formed slowly in the past.
Pretty much so. Again, had things behaved differently in the past, it would leave signs. As a matter of fact there ARE places where things behaved abnormally, and guess what, it left evidence.
The title of this thread is a logical account of creation. The most logical account of creation would be one from a first hand eye witness account. If youâ€™re searching for that account the answer is in Genesis.
Nonsense. The various accounts in Genesis are simply wrong. They are contradictory and mutually exclusive as well as been logically impossible.
As a Christian, I can only echo the words of Bishop Sims, who at the time he wrote this Pastoral Letter related to the various Genesis tales was the Bishop of Georgia:
But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.
Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science.
We can sit here and play dueling quotes or we can shop translations 'till the cows come home, but that has nothing to do with the subject. I provide a quote from a retired (active at the time he wrote the Pastoral Letter) and you quote AIG.
The facts are that the various accounts in Genesis simply do not match the evidence available.
Even your own quote is simply a case of asserting whatever AIG wants despite the fact that it lies and you simply bought it. The disagreement does not disappear, regardless of which translation is used.
Instead of believing liars and con artists like AIG, perhaps you should actually read the Bible. Changing the wording of Genesis 2 to 'had formed' still leaves the contradiction. In Genesis 1 (which is a much later tale than the ones combined into Genesis 2) God simply speaks things into existence, in the Genesis 2 compilation, God is a kid by the streamside forming critters by hand.
The orders of creation are different, the methods are different, the very descriptions of God are different.
Further, neither of the tales matches the evidence of what actually happened. One example is having the earth created before the stars. Sorry, that is simply wrong.
As creation myths go, the Biblical ones are slightly more reasonable than some of the others, but they are still factually wrong and anyone who does not think so is either ignorant, deluded or a liar.
Are the creation stories in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, meant to convey how God originated the universe?
These majestic stories should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation. â€œCreationâ€ in Holy Scripture refers to and describes the relationship between God and all Godâ€™s wonderful works.
To consider the tales as either historical or scientific is to diminish God, turn GOD from a Creator into a bumbling backyard tinkerer and make God a liar and trickster as well.