1. As to Hugh Ross . . . he bases his apologetic on the fact of the Big Bang. However, the Big Bang was not the prevalent view in cosmology until a few decades ago. And, his argument about light is a double edged sword. The Big Bang has its own distant starlight problem, the horizon problem. While some scientists have attempted to come up with work arounds, the problem remains that you cannot fit observational distances in the known universe into the time frame of the "assured" findings of science according to the Big Bang (i.e., 13.8 billion years or so is not more than a quarter of the time needed to account for known distances).

Several physicists have proposed explanations that account for the distant starlight problem within a young earth time frame (e.g., gravitational time dilation).

2. Young earth creationists agree that "yom" means differing things, depending on the context. "Back in my day (when I was 8), my parents took four days to drive all day to Illinois on vacation." In that one sentence the word means three different things. The same is true of the Bible. In Genesis 2 the word refers to more than one 24 hour period. However, whenever you have the linguistic limiters ("day and night," day one, etc.) that specify a 24 hour period, it should be taken in the normal sense. Thus, I have come to believe in a young earth creationist postion (cf. Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics)

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Great answers, thanks, I'll have to study up more on Hugh Ross, although I do truly respect his writings, especially in the realms of Christian apologetics.

__________________
SOLIFIDE

www.joearant.blogspot.com

Romans 9:16

On early Church fathers views:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm

On the Bible suggesting an old earth:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm

Morton's main menu that addresses both scientific and Biblical aspects of the issue:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

Anybody here familiar with Glenn Morton?

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

I think we should defend it as well Brother:The first Part of Genesis DEALS with creation: There was an Evening, there was a morning..." if we begin to undermine this, I think we are on a slippery slope!

__________________
~etexas~

The point is that not everything is very clear on the bible and we shouldn't stress out over non-essential issues. There is going to be some things we don't understand.

__________________
Julio Perez
Member, Reedemer Prebysterian Church, PCA
South Bay, California


"A good deal of the penetrating power of Calvinism depends upon its intellectualism. The Calvinist knows what he believes, and why he believes it."
--Karl Holl, 1909
Johannes Calvin, Rede zur Feier der 400. Wiederkehr des Geburtstages Calvins, pp. 267

OK, from your argument, what if I said :Well,Genesis is not that clear, perhaps the Gospels are not either. Perhaps they need a "touch" of Higher Criticism to bring out just the basic elements o Truth.

This is my point exactly etexas; if someone can say the history of Genesis 1-3 is not literal, then what is to stop then from saying that the historical accounts of the virgin birth and resurrection are not literal either. I am not saying that everyone who takes a non-literal view of Genesis 1 would go down that road, but it is difficult to what logical barrier there is to this.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Yes, it would be hard to avoid such thinking! I mean the 4 Gospels are not always "clear", does this give me the right to reinterpret? I see no "diff" with Genesis, but hey, if someone wants to mangle the Bible, why not start at the first book!

As the psalmist said: "If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?"

Are you serious? Please elaborate when you get the chance.

Blessings!

__________________
Charles Plauger
Member/Grace Reformed Church
Oakland, MD

EXACTLY! I don't mean to sound like the crotchety old guy . . . but more than 35 years ago my Christian college profs convinced me that we should take Genesis symbolically. Without even thinking the issue through, I would throw out the "Genesis 2:4 uses 'yom' for a longer period than 24 hours" quip to dismiss critics as flat earthers. By the time I arrived in seminary, a prof was using the SAME line of thinking to explain that Paul was "wrong" about women in 1 Tim 2. Before that same prof died a few years ago, he was endorsing homosexuality using the SAME kind of hermeneutic for Romans.

Brothers and sisters, please take time to read some of the arguments FOR YOURSELVES.

If you have a problem with the issue of distant starlight, read up on gravitational time dilation, alternate synchrony conventions, and books by phsyicist Russell Humphreys or astrophysicist Jason Lisle. If you have issues with plate techtonics and the possibility of rapid subduction explaining the evidence, cf. geophysicist John Baumgardner. If you are want arguments against the antiquity of the race based on genetics, cf. J.C. Sanford's work on genetic entropy. The RATE study sponsored by ICR did some amazing work on radiometric dating.

Better yet, check out the Answers in Genesis web site: Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. For the general reader, the New Answers Book, available from Answers in Genesis has a great overview of the issues with chapters like these:

* Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years?
* Couldn’t God Have Used Evolution?
* Don’t Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature?
* What about the “Gap” & “Ruin-reconstruction” Theories?
* Cain’s Wife—Who Was She?
* Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
* Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?
* Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old?
* Was There Really a Noah’s Ark & Flood?
* How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed?
* What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?
* Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?
* Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?
* Don’t Creationists Believe Some “Wacky” Things?
* Where Does the Ice Age Fit?
* Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is “Old”?
* Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?
* How Did Defense/Attack Structures Come About?
* Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution?
* Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True?

The study done by a Hebrew professor at Masters Seminary on the literary structure of Genesis was quite enlightening as well. Statistical analysis makes it nearly impossible to read this as anything other than historical narrative.

Since I only came to the YEC position myself during the last few years, I do not want to imply that those who disagree with me are heretics or willful in their ignorance. Most evangelicals and many Reformed thinkers have zero problem with billions of years and believing the Gospels. However, I contend that they are inconsistent in this belief. There does seem to be an organic connection between failing to treat the Bible with normal hermeneutics in Genesis and dismissing all kinds of politically incorrect beliefs in the New Testament.

It depends on what you mean by serious there are some good arguments for Six Day Creation. But sadly the Answers in Genesis crowd seems to want to atack anyone who disagrees with them. I favor the day-age theory o in there thinking I don't support true biblical exegesis i support an idea that down plays the historicity of Adam and makes suffering and death happen before the fall. This just doesn't compute with me because who says it has to be a literal 24 hour day it could very well have taken millions upon millions of years to create the earth but I don't really feel in the long run it is something worth going to war over.

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI
Blog: earthdwell22.blogspot.com

Yet on other threads you have said that you favour Dispensationalism because it takes a literal approach (to literature which is obviously not literal), yet you favour a non-literal approach to a historical account? Seems a very strange position to hold?

Tell me, why can't the word day mean a literal day in Genesis 1? What is the significance of the phrase the "evening and the morning" if the day age theory is correct?

First off I know nothing of Greek or Hebrew so I would only end up making myself look foolish. I also said I favor the day age view C.I Scofield favored Gap Creationism so Dispensationalism and a literal seven days are not joined at the hip as far as why Genesis 1 doesnt mean a literal day I dont know I have my view you have your's I just disagree with the ad homin attacks of a lot of Young Earth creationists on people who dont hold there view it seems rather "unchristian" if you ask me. Also let's not forget if you want to take Genesis literally what about Job 40 is that a Dinosaur then?

Aaron,

You were reponding to Daniel. However, you raise some important points. In my post immediatley above your own, I did not engage in ad hominem attacks on anybody. My post also supplied bibliographic suggestions for exploring issues such as plate techtonic rapid subduction, decay in the genome, etc. There was no unchristian attack on anyone. In fact, I shared my own "testimony" of living most of my adult life as a day ager until re-examining the issue a few years ago. Ultimately, however, it is not a matter of one person having "my view" and another having a different one. Certainly, shouldn't we be able to agree that the Scripture rules over our own "views" whatever they might be?

And, ultimately one must determine how the divine author and human author intended Genesis 1-11 to be understood. Literary analysis of the text by the prof at The Master's Seminary is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct, we should all be YEC people. If it is incorrect, please explain to me how and why. Perhaps you will convince me of the superiority of your exegesis.

Good comments Dennis. All that is needed is consistent exegesis in order to be convinced that the Genesis narrative records a literal 6 day creation. I would argue, however, that they don't have to be 24 hour days. This can make us lose credibility. For instance, a day today is not 24 hours, that's why we have leap year. And the earth has been slowing down since at least the flood, unless something has affected it to make it turn faster that we don't know about. If, as some think, the earth was enclosed by an ice canopy before the flood, then it is entirely possible that the cataclysmic events that lead to the flood could have changed the rotation of the earth. So, I leave the number of hours alone. A day could have been 23 hours, it could have been 30. Frankly, I don't care. Scripture makes it clear that it was literally an evening and a morning. That's all we really need to know. Here's some more information that helps, from a purely exegetical perspective.And Aaron, the dinosaurs definitely were created during this time, and most of them likely perished in the flood. The change in atmospheric conditions would have caused incredible changes in temperature, including instant freezing at the poles, which accounts for woolly mammoths being discovered with undigested food in the stomachs and whale fossils vertically embedded in the layers of earth that "scientists" claim represent millions of years.

In regard to Job 40, it very well could have been a dinosaur. And Job 41 may very well be referring to a dragon. I don't know. However, I will not dare to stand in judgment over that which God has put in judgment over me, namely, Scripture. It says what it says, and if I can't figure it out then it means I'm limited in my understanding. Any claim that God's Word doesn't mean exactly what it says presupposes that

1. we have all the information we need
2. we can correctly interpret all the information we have
3. we can correctly apply our interpretation

Simply put, the old earth hypothesis is untenable both Scripturally and scientifically. Any effort to say otherwise is reminiscent of the words of that old Deceiver, "Hath God surely said...?"

This, as you have alluded to, comes from my admittedly literal and dispensational hermeneutic. If one is true to the dispensational hermeneutic then they have not choice but to be joined at the hip with the 6 literal day creation; regardless of what Scoffield or anyone else says about it.

Dennis, who was the TMS prof that wrote the article. I either missed it in the thread, or something.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Married up in 1988 and blessed with two wonderful sons
TMS graduate
Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI
http://www.SoundLife.org

I am not criticizing anybody I have no real objection to the young earth view I just feel that s