Old Earth v. Young Earth

[Puritanhead]

I was watching something about dinosaurs and recollect debates when we were in college... old earth v. young earth.

What do learned scholars here-- think of the bountiful old earth theories that the earth was met with some earlier cataclysm and God make things anew. For example, my Reformation Study Bible notes on Genesis 1 declare:

Some suggest that vv. 1 and 2 refer to two separate creative acts separated by a span of time. They argue that the initial creation fell into a desolate condition (perhaps because of the fall of Satan), and that the Hebrew word here translated "was" should be rendered "became." This view is very doubtful, however, because the the description, "without form, and void" refers more naturally to a creation yet to be formed and filled, rather than to one that had fallen into disrepair.

Not sure that explains things, but I understand Unger's commentary takes such an approach. It also rolled up in the idea that the days in the creative narrative are merely symbolic of periods... I believe the Hebrew is "yom."

I'm partisan to young earth idea myself.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[Mike]

Young earth. The whole Bible operates on the idea expressed in the first few chapters of Genesis of our first parents' being created and bringing sin into the world and the real development of the human race as described. This effects not only our views of creation, but then of original sin and the effects of sin and the curse.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

there are at least two forms of the gap theory that you mention.
The first is due to Scofield's reference Bible notes.
see the wiki for a decent introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

the second is appears to be due to Arthur Custance, this will get you into his work:
http://custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/Introduction.html

as:
http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/3.1.htm
points out, Sailhamer is another recent author teaching a form of the gap theory.

i don't see it very often on the creation-evolution-design boards but when someone believes it they are often very vocal seeing it as the virtual solution to all the problems in the topic.

 

[matthew11v25]

studying Literary framework.

 

[Puritanhead]

Thank you for your responses.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

gap theory my foot. its nothing more than a compromise with the evolutionists. The creation account in Genesis is the perfect test as to how strong a person's faith it.

 

[Scott]

I am young earth. If you want to look at the various views, see the PCA Creation Study Committee Report.

 

[BobVigneault]

The framework theory is the best and here's why. The subscriber sells it as a theory that is consistent with scripture and isn't a compromise with the evolutionist. Most people wanting to appear erudite and theologically hip won't ask what the framework theory is and so you win.

If someone does ask what the framework theory is, you reply, "well it's pretty complicated" and point them to a website. Here the seeker will find such twists and turns that they will eventually give up and decide they are going to be a framework theorist as well because it's so complicated it must be correct. This intense complexity makes it very appealing to the reformed who are accustomed to wordy labyrinths in text.

You may streamline your apologetic by saying you subscribe to the framework theory and then hand the person a quickstart manual for a printer written in middle-Korean. This will have the same effect.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
The framework theory is the best and here's why. The subscriber sells it as a theory that is consistent with scripture and isn't a compromise with the evolutionist. Most people wanting to appear erudite and theologically hip won't ask what the framework theory is and so you win.

If someone does ask what the framework theory is, you reply, "well it's pretty complicated" and point them to a website. Here the seeker will find such twists and turns that they will eventually give up and decide they are going to be a framework theorist as well because it's so complicated it must be correct. This intense complexity makes it very appealing to the reformed who are accustomed to wordy labyrinths in text.

You may streamline your apologetic by saying you subscribe to the framework theory and then hand the person a quickstart manual for a printer written in middle-Korean. This will have the same effect.

Bob,

With all due respect, that's not quite accurate or entirely fair. It's true that it's not, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it for me" but it's a little simpler than you represent.

It simply says that there are 3 sets of rulers and three sets of realms in Gen 1. God rules over them all and man rules as his vice-gerant, to use Murray's term. That's not too complicated is it? I think that's only two sentences. How many sentences do I have to use before an interpretation is deemed too complicated? On this theory whole chunks of our theology would be in jeopardy!

Strictly speaking, one can hold six days and the framework and many do. E J Young held the framework in the 1940's in his OT Introduction.

The bigger question in the whole debate is what is the theological effect of the framework? So far I haven't seen any coherent answers to this question. I can't see that it affects one's doctrines of God, man, Christ, salvation, church, or last things.

Yes, I realize that hermeneutics pervade all the loci, but still I don't see any necessary effect. All the frameworkers I know are perfectly orthodox. There may be unorthodox frameworkers, but is that unorthodoxy a necessary consequence of the framework? I think not.

Finally, I know it's buried in a 1955 WTJ article, ("Because it Had Rained" -- maybe it's on the web, I haven't checked) but folk should make the effort to actually read the Kline essay and perhaps the Futato essay "Because it Had Rained" before they start bombing away.

MGK has spent more than 50 years defending the unity of the covenant of grace against the dispensationalists, and the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture against the critics. He's defended the gospel against the moralists (Shepherd) and done remarkable scholarship in the relations between the ANE culture and the Scriptures. I think he deserves a little more respect than he gets from his 6-day critics.

I don't really want to get embroiled in the creation debate again. A fellow can only carry on so many at one time, so this is an unfair hit and run post. Mea culpa.

rsc

 

[BobVigneault]

Scott, my comments were mean't to be tongue in cheek for I know very little about the hypothesis. 'Very little about the hypothesis' is coincidently the same amount the proponents whom I have met knew as well.

Thank you as always for steering me toward a couple of sources. I would like to know more. Lord willing and if I can find the time I will become familiar enough to accept or debate the theory.

For now, the stones I threw were made of foam and my comments were more for entertainment than didactic purposes. Come on, "a quickstart manual for a printer written in middle-Korean". Didn't you think that was funny? Did I get a chuckle? A smile? A nod? Man, I've got to find some new material.

Blessings brother, thanks again for the direction. You do that so well.

 

[BobVigneault]

A google search scored Kline here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html

And a pdf of Futato over at thirdmill.org
http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/theology/92974~9_27_99_7-13-34_PM~TH.Futato.Rained.1.pdf.

 

[py3ak]

I thought it was a scream, Bob.

 

[BobVigneault]

Thank you for that vote of approval Ruben, my existence here is now justified. As a reward for giving me a little encouragement your post count has been increased by 1. Don't thank ME, it's the very least I could do.

 

[py3ak]

Bob,

I can barely restrain my feelings of obligation. Perhaps I could give you my firstborn son in return? Wait! Look at that, it's gone up again. I'd throw in my daughter, too, only both of them are hypothetical.

 

[just_grace]

One day is the same as a thousand years ( millions even ) Does it matter?

I recently viewed a dvd called Microcosmos, afterwards, the conclusion is, God is! Thats the end of it, the author is bringing out a new one soon called 'Genesis'. You can view a trailer here...

http://www.genesis-lefilm.com/

Not sure if the guy is Christian but his films inspire my faith, this new one seems a bit Darwi but not totally.

Does it matter?

 

[just_grace]

Duplicate post?

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by just_grace]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Scott, my comments were mean't to be tongue in cheek for I know very little about the hypothesis. 'Very little about the hypothesis' is coincidently the same amount the proponents whom I have met knew as well.

Thank you as always for steering me toward a couple of sources. I would like to know more. Lord willing and if I can find the time I will become familiar enough to accept or debate the theory.

For now, the stones I threw were made of foam and my comments were more for entertainment than didactic purposes. Come on, "a quickstart manual for a printer written in middle-Korean". Didn't you think that was funny? Did I get a chuckle? A smile? A nod? Man, I've got to find some new material.

Blessings brother, thanks again for the direction. You do that so well.

Sorry, missed the context. I did laugh at the middle korean thing.

what's the proper icon for "my stupid response" - there should be one with a smiley pointing a gun to his own head.

Mea maxima culpa.

Having been on the receving end of endless criticism on this for 20+ years I'm getting a little reactionary in my old age.

rsc

 

[BobVigneault]

One day is the same as a thousand years ( millions even ) Does it matter?

Yes David it does. First, don't be tricked into thinking that using a new testament greek passage to interpret an old testament hebrew word is a good hermeneutic. It's not.

Second, why should day mean day in most of the OT passages but millions of years in Gen 1.

Does it matter? Did Joshua march around Jericho 7 thousand times (millions even)? Was Jonah in the belly of the fish 3 thousand years? Was Jesus in the tomb for 3 thousand days?

There is absolutely no need to compromise with the evolutionists. Blessings.

 

[just_grace]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
One day is the same as a thousand years ( millions even ) Does it matter?

Yes David it does. First, don't be tricked into thinking that using a new testament greek passage to interpret an old testament hebrew word is a good hermeneutic. It's not.

Second, why should day mean day in most of the OT passages but millions of years in Gen 1.

Does it matter? Did Joshua march around Jericho 7 thousand times (millions even)? Was Jonah in the belly of the fish 3 thousand years? Was Jesus in the tomb for 3 thousand days?

There is absolutely no need to compromise with the evolutionists. Blessings.

Jericho was obviously literal 24hrs = 1 day, people were there to witness it.

How you shut your eyes to the thought of God with regards to time is your business.

And yes, does it matter? How does it change the Gospel?

 

[BobVigneault]

Dr. Scott,
no culpa is necessary. Your response was given in gentleness and grace. Your 'mea maxima culpa' was equally superfluous and I wish you hadn't used it because, as you well know, there is no where to go now except to the "trinus canis culpa". Yes, let us both hope that we are never in the situation that we need to invoke the 'triple dog culpa'. Have a great day brother.

 

[BobVigneault]

"And yes, does it matter? How does it change the Gospel?"

Because our knowledge of the Gospel depends on the propositions of scripture being true and trustworthy. If the words used in Genesis are nebulous and indistinct then why should we trust the words and propositions of the Gospel narratives. Is the book of Genesis the infallible word of God or the idlings of a disgraced Egyptian who was tending sheep too long? We can't pick and choose or arbitrarily apply a changing hermeneutic to the Word.

 

[just_grace]

It's funny, but my knowledge of God comes by being 'born again' after that I learn from the Bible, I recieved the Holy Spirit, it is He who leads me into all truth.

I knew nothing of the OT when I got saved! My knowledge of Christianity does not rest on the OT but in God and Christ. And most importantly 'Grace'.

Thanks

David

 

[BobVigneault]

I am pleased to hear that David, but I will take the liberty to qualify your statement that what you mean is you believe in the God of the OT and NT and in Jesus Christ as revealed in both testaments. If you don't qualify this then I have to ask, which Christ have you placed your faith in. You can't separate the truth of God from his revelation. The Holy Spirit may give you a certain intangible unction but it is the truth of the written Word that He leads you into.

Grace to you friend.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by BobVigneault]

 

[just_grace]

Yes, I think is the answer, sorry I am on my laptop washing dishes in the kitchen so I am a bit distracted.

In former times.....

But now.....

Let me ask you a question! Can we know and experience God more through the OT or the NT and what did the writer of Hebrews mean by 'a new and LIVING Way'

Answer this.

I have to go out for a bit soon.

Thanks

David

 

[BobVigneault]

My David, it does sound like you have your hands full. I hope your laptop is water proof and not plugged into the wall. You should get hazardous duty pay for using a laptop while washing dishes.

Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.

We now have access to God in a new way as opposed to the old way, the covenant of works. It is a living way in that the covenant of works leads to death.

This passage refers to the new covenant of grace and in no way changes how God reveals his truth to us. In fact, the only way to understand the idioms of the book of Hebrews is to be familiar with the rituals listed in Leviticus. All of scripture is a unity, one Christ-centered history of redemption. We let scripture interpret scripture. Christ did not put an end to the Law and the Prophets but he fulfilled these writings.

We can experience God in His Word and without Genesis 1 through 11 we would lose the foundations for the bulk of our Christian doctrines.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by BobVigneault]

 

[just_grace]

I am not always washing dishes lol!

Nice one, not convinced about your interpretation on Christianity being 'Living' though.

1 John talks about fellowship with the Father and the Son, do you think this is possible for Christians today?

Thanks

David

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by just_grace]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Yeah, you go, Bob!

(okay for anyone who doesn't know...that WAS a really cool dancing m&m)

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by LadyFlynt]

 

[just_grace]

?

 

[BobVigneault]

"1 John talks about fellowship with the Father and the Son, do you think this is possible for Christians today?"

David, I'm afraid I don't understand your last question.

 

[just_grace]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
"1 John talks about fellowship with the Father and the Son, do you think this is possible for Christians today?"

David, I'm afraid I don't understand your last question.

I thought it was quite clear.