Why I am now a Young-Earth Creationist

[ColdSilverMoon]

However, looking at my Rube Goldberg system a few years ago, it dawned on me that many problems are created (as well as solved) by the Day Age view. Death, for example, is theologially attributed to sin. But, allowing for millions of years of creational "trial and error" to produce the species of plants and animals, results in a God who keeps trying to get it right and finally interrupts his naturalistic enterprise to drop Adam and Eve into it. Death, then, is only "theologically" not factually the result of sin and that militates against the need for an Adam and Eve at all. If the Genesis saga is merely ANE cosmology gone Jewish, then why not see the whole thing the way Genome head and "evangelial" Francis Collins does, it is all theistic evolution from start to finish without the requirement of ANY divine intervention along the way? Adam and Eve become a quaint intrusion into a naturalistic schema that hardly requires them.

Actually, believing in a lack of animal death before the Fall is much more of a "trial and error" approach than evolution, though I don't believe in evolution per se. If you believe all animals were herbivores before the Fall, then you must by necessity believe in a 2nd creation, or at the very least an extreme modification of the existing creation. For example, were lions created with giant claws and teeth before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God had to redesign them completely, so that in fact they were not really lions at all to begin with. Or spiders - did they spin webs before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God essentially created a new species after the Fall or so changed the original that it would be completely different. So really if you believe animals did not die before the Fall, then you must believe in a trial and error approach, since God would either have to re-create everything or completely change everything, including very fundamental elements of the biosphere, namely the food chain. In reality, nothing in Scripture indicates there was no animal death before the Fall. However, there was clearly no human death. That I agree 100% with, and reject any theory that claims man evolved or arrived by any means other than special ex nihilo.

My point can be summarized as follows:

- First of all, one does not need to believe in evolution as an explanation for life on Earth to be an OECer. An OECer simply believes the Earth was created over millions of years, but that does not mean he or she accepts evolution (though most do).

- Second, one can accept evolution, so long as they believe humans did NOT evolve, but were created unique and distinct by God, and that the first human deaths did not occur until after the Fall.

- Third, evolution is not a "trial and error" process, but a divinely instituted refining process that is in place today. Evolution happens, at least on a small scale. To deny its existence is to deny simple observation. It is a wonderful mechanism of maintaining and enhancing the diversity of all God's creation. That does not mean all living things evolved from the so-called "primordial ooze" (an absurd belief, in my opinion), but it does mean evolution is a valid concept created by God.

- Fourth, while I have not read the Answers in Genesis material, I am still unconvinced that an Old Earth view of Creation changes anything theologically. God is still the Almighty, the Creator. Man was still created in His image, sinned against Him, and thus all his progeny are in need of a Savior. The Bible is still infallible and inerrant. So what if God took millions of years to mold Earth? So what if He did it instantly (as Augustine believed)? I fail to see how it changes any of our beliefs, other than our understanding of Genesis 1.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

There is no death, including animal death, because death is abnormal for all not just for humans.

 

[Confessor]

Actually, believing in a lack of animal death before the Fall is much more of a "trial and error" approach than evolution, though I don't believe in evolution per se. If you believe all animals were herbivores before the Fall, then you must by necessity believe in a 2nd creation, or at the very least an extreme modification of the existing creation. For example, were lions created with giant claws and teeth before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God had to redesign them completely, so that in fact they were not really lions at all to begin with. Or spiders - did they spin webs before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God essentially created a new species after the Fall or so changed the original that it would be completely different. So really if you believe animals did not die before the Fall, then you must believe in a trial and error approach, since God would either have to re-create everything or completely change everything, including very fundamental elements of the biosphere, namely the food chain. In reality, nothing in Scripture indicates there was no animal death before the Fall. However, there was clearly no human death. That I agree 100% with, and reject any theory that claims man evolved or arrived by any means other than special ex nihilo.

My point can be summarized as follows:

- First of all, one does not need to believe in evolution as an explanation for life on Earth to be an OECer. An OECer simply believes the Earth was created over millions of years, but that does not mean he or she accepts evolution (though most do).

- Second, one can accept evolution, so long as they believe humans did NOT evolve, but were created unique and distinct by God, and that the first human deaths did not occur until after the Fall.

- Third, evolution is not a "trial and error" process, but a divinely instituted refining process that is in place today. Evolution happens, at least on a small scale. To deny its existence is to deny simple observation. It is a wonderful mechanism of maintaining and enhancing the diversity of all God's creation. That does not mean all living things evolved from the so-called "primordial ooze" (an absurd belief, in my opinion), but it does mean evolution is a valid concept created by God.

- Fourth, while I have not read the Answers in Genesis material, I am still unconvinced that an Old Earth view of Creation changes anything theologically. God is still the Almighty, the Creator. Man was still created in His image, sinned against Him, and thus all his progeny are in need of a Savior. The Bible is still infallible and inerrant. So what if God took millions of years to mold Earth? So what if He did it instantly (as Augustine believed)? I fail to see how it changes any of our beliefs, other than our understanding of Genesis 1.

It's not the fact that we can't imagine an old earth -- I made a nice model involving evolution that didn't alter other doctrine -- it's that a straightforward reading of Scripture, while holding Scripture as the supreme authority, yields an indisputable young-earth conclusion.

If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical.

 

[Stomata leontôn]

Death and aging are in our DNA, so there is no question that the nature of all creation changed at the Fall.

As for spiders, don't they eat bugs? Since, unlike dogs and cats, bugs don't seem to have consciousness, isn't eating bugs a bit like eating a plant, morally speaking? (I really enjoy shrimp and grits, by the way.) In my understanding, bug-eating "carnivores" like spiders could have been created by God. Some of the webs I have seen woven by garden spiders are awe-inspring, especially since the spider has no reason. Of course other spiders seem to be a perfect symbol of pure evil. Loathsome little critters.

I once knew a good pastor who believed in an old earth, since his first degree was in Geology; he said "it was obvious." I am reasonably sure he did not believe in evolution, but I am curious how an old earth, non-evolutionary approach to creation would work. I confess my ignorance here.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

I know of a very godly man who believes that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be billions of years. He argues that we could not see starlight that is billions of lightyears away were the universe only 6000 years old. He does affirm the 24/6 creation of LIFE on earth about 6000 years ago but that the earth (the rock) and the universe is billions of years old. Have any of you guys heard of this before?

 

[gene_mingo]

I know of a very godly man who believes that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be billions of years. He argues that we could not see starlight that is billions of lightyears away were the universe only 6000 years old. He does affirm the 24/6 creation of LIFE on earth about 6000 years ago but that the earth (the rock) and the universe is billions of years old. Have any of you guys heard of this before?

My father holds to the same idea.

 

[sastark]

I know of a very godly man who believes that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be billions of years. He argues that we could not see starlight that is billions of lightyears away were the universe only 6000 years old. He does affirm the 24/6 creation of LIFE on earth about 6000 years ago but that the earth (the rock) and the universe is billions of years old. Have any of you guys heard of this before?

Without impugning the man's godliness: this is just silly. God can create the heavens and the stars that populate them, but He is incapable of creating the light between the stars and earth? He had to wait billions and billions of years for the light to travel from the star to earth?

Whatever happened to "Let there be light"?

 

[Jon Peters]

I know of a very godly man who believes that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be billions of years. He argues that we could not see starlight that is billions of lightyears away were the universe only 6000 years old. He does affirm the 24/6 creation of LIFE on earth about 6000 years ago but that the earth (the rock) and the universe is billions of years old. Have any of you guys heard of this before?

Without impugning the man's godliness: this is just silly. God can create the heavens and the stars that populate them, but He is incapable of creating the light between the stars and earth? He had to wait billions and billions of years for the light to travel from the star to earth?

Whatever happened to "Let there be light"?

It does seem a bit odd to get hung up on something like that. Was Adam created with the appearance of age or did God create him beginning at the fertilization stage? Even this presupposes that things were created with some appearance of age, i.e., the sperm and the egg had some age.

This objection to a literal reading of Genesis strikes me as having naturalistic assumptions: God can somehow only work within the processes of Nature. Or am I reading too much into it?

 

[Jon Peters]

However, looking at my Rube Goldberg system a few years ago, it dawned on me that many problems are created (as well as solved) by the Day Age view. Death, for example, is theologially attributed to sin. But, allowing for millions of years of creational "trial and error" to produce the species of plants and animals, results in a God who keeps trying to get it right and finally interrupts his naturalistic enterprise to drop Adam and Eve into it. Death, then, is only "theologically" not factually the result of sin and that militates against the need for an Adam and Eve at all. If the Genesis saga is merely ANE cosmology gone Jewish, then why not see the whole thing the way Genome head and "evangelial" Francis Collins does, it is all theistic evolution from start to finish without the requirement of ANY divine intervention along the way? Adam and Eve become a quaint intrusion into a naturalistic schema that hardly requires them.

Actually, believing in a lack of animal death before the Fall is much more of a "trial and error" approach than evolution, though I don't believe in evolution per se. If you believe all animals were herbivores before the Fall, then you must by necessity believe in a 2nd creation, or at the very least an extreme modification of the existing creation. For example, were lions created with giant claws and teeth before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God had to redesign them completely, so that in fact they were not really lions at all to begin with. Or spiders - did they spin webs before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God essentially created a new species after the Fall or so changed the original that it would be completely different. So really if you believe animals did not die before the Fall, then you must believe in a trial and error approach, since God would either have to re-create everything or completely change everything, including very fundamental elements of the biosphere, namely the food chain. In reality, nothing in Scripture indicates there was no animal death before the Fall. However, there was clearly no human death. That I agree 100% with, and reject any theory that claims man evolved or arrived by any means other than special ex nihilo.

My point can be summarized as follows:

- First of all, one does not need to believe in evolution as an explanation for life on Earth to be an OECer. An OECer simply believes the Earth was created over millions of years, but that does not mean he or she accepts evolution (though most do).

- Second, one can accept evolution, so long as they believe humans did NOT evolve, but were created unique and distinct by God, and that the first human deaths did not occur until after the Fall.

- Third, evolution is not a "trial and error" process, but a divinely instituted refining process that is in place today. Evolution happens, at least on a small scale. To deny its existence is to deny simple observation. It is a wonderful mechanism of maintaining and enhancing the diversity of all God's creation. That does not mean all living things evolved from the so-called "primordial ooze" (an absurd belief, in my opinion), but it does mean evolution is a valid concept created by God.

- Fourth, while I have not read the Answers in Genesis material, I am still unconvinced that an Old Earth view of Creation changes anything theologically. God is still the Almighty, the Creator. Man was still created in His image, sinned against Him, and thus all his progeny are in need of a Savior. The Bible is still infallible and inerrant. So what if God took millions of years to mold Earth? So what if He did it instantly (as Augustine believed)? I fail to see how it changes any of our beliefs, other than our understanding of Genesis 1.

I think the points raised here are worth thinking about. Except for general statements about the effects of sin upon creation, I don't believe there is any Biblical evidence that animals that are now carnivores underwent a rather dramatic change at the fall. (If there is evidence, please forgive my ignorance for I have never studied the matter.) For that matter, in the imagery of the new covenant in the prophets, carnivores are seen resting with their prey with no evidence that those specific post-Fall physical traits have been reversed.

I think that the Genesis account raises enough questions that we should have some charity for those who may not walk in lock stop with the 24 hours view instead of immediately presuming some humanistic, sinful motivations (not that anyone would do that here).

 

[staythecourse]

I know of a very godly man who believes that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be billions of years. He argues that we could not see starlight that is billions of lightyears away were the universe only 6000 years old. He does affirm the 24/6 creation of LIFE on earth about 6000 years ago but that the earth (the rock) and the universe is billions of years old. Have any of you guys heard of this before?

Without impugning the man's godliness: this is just silly. God can create the heavens and the stars that populate them, but He is incapable of creating the light between the stars and earth? He had to wait billions and billions of years for the light to travel from the star to earth?

Whatever happened to "Let there be light"?

Hey, Seth, you beat me to the punch. My Scripture reference was also "let there be light" with the same exegesis.

 

[DMcFadden]

I think that the Genesis account raises enough questions that we should have some charity for those who may not walk in lock stop with the 24 hours view instead of immediately presuming some humanistic, sinful motivations (not that anyone would do that here).

The belief that life evolved on earth (with or without divine intervention) over 3.5 billion years implies an endless series of starts, dead ends, new starts, etc. Death is part of the warp of woof of the idea of "nature" red in tooth and claw.

Most progressive creationists (e.g., Ross) want to posit a unique humanity back between 40k and 100k. Interestingly, prior to the discovery of Australian peoples dated back nearly 100k, Ross was saying that the first human was only 40k-50k. What does that make the Australian indigenous peoples, subhuman "savages"???

If you accept the theory of evolution, you have a very long history of human development, with thousands of generations of death before your mythical "Adam." Frankly, that takes more faith to believe than the straight-forward account in Genesis.

All I am contending is that if you read some of the better YEC material, written by PhD's in microbiology, genetics, astrophysics, geology, etc., you will discover that they offer plausible explanations for all of the same facts interpreted by the Darwinists in a naturalistic direction.

I am convinced that this is a clash of presuppositions as incompatible as oil and water. IFF you want to attempt an accommodation, you can probably do it. We are, after all, very clever apes (they say). However, I still think that you will find such efforts at hermeneutical gymnastics coming back to bite you in the Doctrine of God, the Doctrine of the Word of God, the Doctrine of Redemption, the Doctrine of Humanity Made in the Image of God, marriage, homosexuality, and a host of other topics.

Do I consign the progressive creationists to hell? Of course not! I was a conservative evangelical fighting against a liberal mainline denomination while an Old Earther. However, examined presuppositionally, it is not that hard of a choice. No advance in science depends upon the "truth" of evolution. And, the curse of Darwin is as bad as Pelagianism in countering a right belief in the Gospel.

At least read some of the AiG material before dismissing it as nonsense.

 

[sastark]

I know of a very godly man who believes that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be billions of years. He argues that we could not see starlight that is billions of lightyears away were the universe only 6000 years old. He does affirm the 24/6 creation of LIFE on earth about 6000 years ago but that the earth (the rock) and the universe is billions of years old. Have any of you guys heard of this before?

Without impugning the man's godliness: this is just silly. God can create the heavens and the stars that populate them, but He is incapable of creating the light between the stars and earth? He had to wait billions and billions of years for the light to travel from the star to earth?

Whatever happened to "Let there be light"?

It does seem a bit odd to get hung up on something like that. Was Adam created with the appearance of age or did God create him beginning at the fertilization stage? Even this presupposes that things were created with some appearance of age, i.e., the sperm and the egg had some age.

This objection to a literal reading of Genesis strikes me as having naturalistic assumptions: God can somehow only work within the processes of Nature. Or am I reading too much into it?

Yes, of all the arguments against a young earth, I find this to be the weakest for two reasons: First, God could have created the light between the stars and earth just as easily as He created the stars and the earth. Second, this argument assumes we know the nature of the universe and how light travels through it. I find that to also be a huge assumption.

Well, I guess the third objection is that a plain reading of the creation account does not allow for anything but a 6 day creation. But the first two were the ones I wanted to emphasize.

 

[Confessor]

The belief that life evolved on earth (with or without divine intervention) over 3.5 billion years implies an endless series of starts, dead ends, new starts, etc. Death is part of the warp of woof of the idea of "nature" red in tooth and claw.

Most progressive creationists (e.g., Ross) want to posit a unique humanity back between 40k and 100k. Interestingly, prior to the discovery of Australian peoples dated back nearly 100k, Ross was saying that the first human was only 40k-50k. What does that make the Australian indigenous peoples, subhuman "savages"???

If you accept the theory of evolution, you have a very long history of human development, with thousands of generations of death before your mythical "Adam." Frankly, that takes more faith to believe than the straight-forward account in Genesis.

All I am contending is that if you read some of the better YEC material, written by PhD's in microbiology, genetics, astrophysics, geology, etc., you will discover that they offer plausible explanations for all of the same facts interpreted by the Darwinists in a naturalistic direction.

I am convinced that this is a clash of presuppositions as incompatible as oil and water. IFF you want to attempt an accommodation, you can probably do it. We are, after all, very clever apes (they say). However, I still think that you will find such efforts at hermeneutical gymnastics coming back to bite you in the Doctrine of God, the Doctrine of the Word of God, the Doctrine of Redemption, the Doctrine of Humanity Made in the Image of God, marriage, homosexuality, and a host of other topics.

Do I consign the progressive creationists to hell? Of course not! I was a conservative evangelical fighting against a liberal mainline denomination while an Old Earther. However, examined presuppositionally, it is not that hard of a choice. No advance in science depends upon the "truth" of evolution. And, the curse of Darwin is as bad as Pelagianism in countering a right belief in the Gospel.

At least read some of the AiG material before dismissing it as nonsense.

I definitely want to see some YEC writings, seeing as I abandoned theistic evolution for purely philosophical/theological reasons. Would you recommend any books in addition to the essays on AiG?

Also, this is irrelevant, but when you said "iff" did you mean "if and only if" or did you accidentally add an extra "f"? I'm just curious.

 

[staythecourse]

I am also a young earth adherer. Biblically speaking, in the Genesis account, God would have had to have been speaking symbolically regarding the days and the events in each day, speak in a mysterious way regarding the formation of Adam, Eve, the garden while also using real names like "Tigris and Ephrates" then quickly revert to no symbolism using real names of people, real geographical areas, real ages of people and so on.

But I think we all would say, Satan was a real serpent (with legs and then without) there was a real physical tree of evil/good and a real physical tree of life, a real angel who guarded the tree, a real expulsion from the area, and on and on.

In essence, it starts of all mysterious and then gets non-metaphorical and non-symbolic.

 

[gene_mingo]

Philip H Goose, in his book, Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, argued that creation was created in six literal days, but had a history. God created both sapling and old growth trees and that if you were to cut down the old growth you would find tree rings to reflect the age of the tree. He applied this argument to geology as well. He called this theory "prochronism". His book was published in 1857, a couple of years before Darwin's Origin of Species.

 

[DMcFadden]

First, I meant the iff when the sentence started but lost track of it by the end. Oops!

Don't brush off the AiG site.

1. They have a fine, peer-reviewed technical journal: "Answers Research Journal" Answers Research Journal - Creation, Evolution, Scientific Research - Answers Research Journal (which is entirely separate from their lay oriented "Answers." A recent article was: "Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina."

2. They have several of their books online for FREE! Online resources

The New Answers Book
Creation: Facts of Life
Evolution Exposed
Frozen in Time: The Woolly Mammoth, the Ice Age, and the Bible
How Could a Loving God . . . ?
In Six Days
Taking Back Astronomy
The Lie
War of the Worldviews
Why Won’t They Listen?

3. They have some amazing DVD programs that are quite affordable.

4. They offer online courses on creation apologetics that cover an amazing array of topics. I completed the APO 101 Apologetics for Creation Apologetics course and found it quite helpful.

Among the other books you might find helpful are . . .

Creation and Change, Douglas Kelly, PhD (Mentor, 1997). A solid contribution by the Reformed theologian who convinced R.C. Sproul to change his mind on the subject.

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, J.C. Sanford, PhD. (Ivan Press, 2005). Dr. Sanford is the inventor of the biolistic ("gene gun") process (= most widely used technique in plant genetics), early discoverer of pathogen-derived resistance, and pioneer in genetic immunization. He suggests that the decay rate in the human genome makes it impossible that human life has been around more than 6-10k years.

The Answers Books:
The NEW Answers Book, edited Ken Ham
The NEW Answers Book 2, edited Ken Ham
With 55 stand alone chapters between the two books, they offer a GREAT introduction to YEC issues written by a number of leading YEC folks, including astrophysicists, biologists, and geologists.

Thousands . . . Not Billions, Don DeYoung, PhD (Master Books, 2005). This is a popular summary of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project that was reported in a much longer scientific form. Dr. DeYoung, Christian college physics prof, gives a VERY readable of the various areas of Carbon-14 issues, helium retention in zircon crystals, and a statistical analysis of Genesis 1-2 as to genre.

Refuting Compromise, Jonathan Sarfati, PhD (Master Books, 2004). Sarfati is a genius who takes on Hugh Ross and shows the weaknesses of progressive creation. He is also the author of Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2.

Starlight and Time, Dr. Russell Humphreys, PhD (Master Books, 1994). Dr. Humphreys employs the gravitational time dilation explanation for how distant starlight could reach earth in a YEC setting.

Starlight, Time and the New Physics, John Hartnett, PhD (Creation Book Publishers, 2007). This physicist/cosmologist picks up where Humphreys leaves off. The math is in the appendices.

 

[Archlute]

Puritan Sailor:

I don't know any Westminster Assemblers differ from 24/7 view but I do know giants like Augustine, Kuyper, Bavinck, just to quickly name a few that opposes 24/7 read and favors alternative exegetical possibilities.

And yes there ARE alternative exegetical possibilities that respects the genre and style of Genesis 1-2, in the original Hebrew.

Augustine was reading the creation account, and views of time in general, through the grid of neo-platonic philosophy. Later men such as Warfield and Bavinck (I haven't read anything on this by Kuyper) were definitely under pressure from the stranglehold of modernism upon the thought of their day. I don't think that any of these men were at their exegetical and theological best on this issue.

 

[Archlute]

Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.

Let's be honest here, if every Westminster divine held to the "traditional view", if indeed there is a "traditional" view, all that would prove is that the Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study and recent discoveries of ANE sources with which to engage.

Too often the hermeneutical trump card of ANE materials is thrown into discussions such as this without anyone examining the manner in which those sources have been interpreted (yes, they need interpreting as well), by whom, and the motives and philosophical foundations of their use by others. Many times, ANE sources have been misused against orthodox interpretations of Scripture (see my post #45 on the RC Sproul/Days of Creation thread for an example of this), and this should cause us to be wary of claiming that ANE studies have definitively changed anything (even some of their own scholars admit that many of ANE claims are based upon uncertain evidence, or are in some state of fluctuation).

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Honest is all I want. I would like propenents of new theories like the framework hypothesis or OEC to concede their ideas are novel in church history and have no place in our Confessional documents. They are an exception. Only after everyone is honest about it will the Church adequately wrestle through the issue in an edifying way.

While we're being honest, why can't YECers admit that the OEC view does not change our understanding of God, the Bible, and the Gospel?

Because the OEC does in fact change the way we understand and interpret the Bible. When something is written in historic narrative style, the logical hermeneutical choice is to read it as historical narrative, a recording of actual history, just as we would any other historic narrative in the OT.

So long as one believes Adam and Eve were created distinct in the image of God as the first humans, I see nothing wrong with a Day-Age belief that the Earth is millions of year old.

Why would you understand Adam and Eve to be historical and not the rest of the passage? By what standard are you selecting the elements of the account as legitimately historical vs. the rest as non-historical?

The day age idea simply doesn't fit the straight forward Hebrew grammar. Whenever ordinal numbers are attached to "day" it's used in reference to a regular day. When God even defines "day" as evening and morning, how can that possibly be interpreted as "age"? When later Scripture clarifies the passage that God created in "six days" how can it not mean six regular days, especially when he tells us to follow his example? When Jesus says that Adam and Eve's marriage occurred "in the beginning" how can that be interpreted as millions of years? When there are no poetic elements (i.e. parallelism) in the passage, on what grounds is it interpreted as non-historical?

When the Scripture says that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born and died at the age of 930, should we take that as history? When the entire genealogy to Noah is likewise so precise, how can we explain that away as a selective genealogy? How can such specific years not be an accurate measurement of the amount of time at least between Adam and Noah? What is the theological point to those years if they are not actual history?

The implications for interpreting it any other way than historical are very serious. It is merely arbitrary to not extend that non-historical literary approach to the rest of the OT (and NT) narratives, seeking the alleged kernel of theological truth rather than accepting them as historically accurate recordings of God accommodating to us in space and time with the purpose of communicating with his people.

God acts in history and then records and interprets it for us through his prophets. He used the helpful Hebrew narrative structure to communicate both the history and the theological message about his historical acts. Remove the history and you remove any objective foundation for the theology which He intends to teach. God accommodates himself to us both by his example and his interpretation of that example. If God did not actually create in six days, then how are we to follow his pattern as he commands (Ex. 20:11)? How can we obey a God who didn't actually do what he said he did (i.e. create "in six days")? This is why this debate of 6/24 days is so important. It ultimately affects the way you read the entire Bible. By denying the historicity of an otherwise narrative structured account it shifts the ground of interpretation from God's own self-disclosure and interpretation to your own arbitrary interpretation. Throw in concessions to unbelieving assumptions about the world and you are in for a dangerous mix.

Douglas Kelly's book Creation and Change, is extremely helpful at pointing all this out. I recommend it to everyone here.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Without impugning the man's godliness: this is just silly. God can create the heavens and the stars that populate them, but He is incapable of creating the light between the stars and earth? He had to wait billions and billions of years for the light to travel from the star to earth?

Whatever happened to "Let there be light"?

It does seem a bit odd to get hung up on something like that. Was Adam created with the appearance of age or did God create him beginning at the fertilization stage? Even this presupposes that things were created with some appearance of age, i.e., the sperm and the egg had some age.

This objection to a literal reading of Genesis strikes me as having naturalistic assumptions: God can somehow only work within the processes of Nature. Or am I reading too much into it?

Yes, of all the arguments against a young earth, I find this to be the weakest for two reasons: First, God could have created the light between the stars and earth just as easily as He created the stars and the earth. Second, this argument assumes we know the nature of the universe and how light travels through it. I find that to also be a huge assumption.

Well, I guess the third objection is that a plain reading of the creation account does not allow for anything but a 6 day creation. But the first two were the ones I wanted to emphasize.

Another point is that all the starlight we actually see is actually from the stars. Light is God's creature and obeys his command. He is free to slow it down or speed it up as he so pleases. He is free to let is shine with or without light bearers.

Another point about the "appearance of age" idea is simply to ask the question "who decides what 'age' looks like"? We know how naturalists define it. But God is not bound by such arbitrary definitions. The laws of nature have not always functioned the way they do today, hence we cannot base the age of the universe upon our scientific observations today. God has freely altered the "laws" as he so pleased whenever he performed miracles. This leaves all questions about age and origins to be decided by two opposing authorities, God's eye witness and revelation or unbelieving man's limited speculations.

 

[cih1355]

When God created the stars, did He connect the stars and the earth with light in such a way so that the light did not travel? Allow me to give an illustration so that you can understand my question. Suppose there are two dots separated from each other at a certain distance and suppose there is a piece of string that is long enough to stretch from one dot to the other. One could take that piece of string to connect those dots. Just as a person can connect two dots with a piece of string, could God have connected the stars and the earth with light?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Actually, believing in a lack of animal death before the Fall is much more of a "trial and error" approach than evolution, though I don't believe in evolution per se. If you believe all animals were herbivores before the Fall, then you must by necessity believe in a 2nd creation, or at the very least an extreme modification of the existing creation. For example, were lions created with giant claws and teeth before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God had to redesign them completely, so that in fact they were not really lions at all to begin with. Or spiders - did they spin webs before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God essentially created a new species after the Fall or so changed the original that it would be completely different. So really if you believe animals did not die before the Fall, then you must believe in a trial and error approach, since God would either have to re-create everything or completely change everything, including very fundamental elements of the biosphere, namely the food chain. In reality, nothing in Scripture indicates there was no animal death before the Fall. However, there was clearly no human death. That I agree 100% with, and reject any theory that claims man evolved or arrived by any means other than special ex nihilo.

My point can be summarized as follows:

- First of all, one does not need to believe in evolution as an explanation for life on Earth to be an OECer. An OECer simply believes the Earth was created over millions of years, but that does not mean he or she accepts evolution (though most do).

- Second, one can accept evolution, so long as they believe humans did NOT evolve, but were created unique and distinct by God, and that the first human deaths did not occur until after the Fall.

- Third, evolution is not a "trial and error" process, but a divinely instituted refining process that is in place today. Evolution happens, at least on a small scale. To deny its existence is to deny simple observation. It is a wonderful mechanism of maintaining and enhancing the diversity of all God's creation. That does not mean all living things evolved from the so-called "primordial ooze" (an absurd belief, in my opinion), but it does mean evolution is a valid concept created by God.

- Fourth, while I have not read the Answers in Genesis material, I am still unconvinced that an Old Earth view of Creation changes anything theologically. God is still the Almighty, the Creator. Man was still created in His image, sinned against Him, and thus all his progeny are in need of a Savior. The Bible is still infallible and inerrant. So what if God took millions of years to mold Earth? So what if He did it instantly (as Augustine believed)? I fail to see how it changes any of our beliefs, other than our understanding of Genesis 1.

It's not the fact that we can't imagine an old earth -- I made a nice model involving evolution that didn't alter other doctrine -- it's that a straightforward reading of Scripture, while holding Scripture as the supreme authority, yields an indisputable young-earth conclusion.

If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical.

Welcome to the land of geocentrism.

CT

 

[Confessor]

Welcome to the land of geocentrism.

CT

Where does exegesis require geocentrism?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

When God created the stars, did He connect the stars and the earth with light in such a way so that the light did not travel? Allow me to give an illustration so that you can understand my question. Suppose there are two dots separated from each other at a certain distance and suppose there is a piece of string that is long enough to stretch from one dot to the other. One could take that piece of string to connect those dots. Just as a person can connect two dots with a piece of string, could God have connected the stars and the earth with light?

Here's a poor illustration but.. Think of the light more like chewing gum. Grab it with 2 hands and stretch. It's still the same gum connecting the points but the points move apart. When God controls it all, he can manipulate it and still maintain the connection from source to recipient.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Welcome to the land of geocentrism.

CT

Where does exegesis require geocentrism?

When you use the criteria used above:

"If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical."

Then you are without any other options than geocentrism. That is why you would be hard pressed to find anyone throughout church history who held to anything other than geocentrism before Galileo/Copernicus etc.

The usual first text that is pointed to is Joshua's long day

Joshua 10:12-13

12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

CT

 

[regenerated]

All this debate/discussion about whether you are an OEC or YEC advocate is rather intellectually boring I must say.

I do not believe in evolutionary theism.

To try and prove by debate/discussion that OEC or YEC is the correct belief system is like children arguing in the playground.

We are a people of faith and we will be judged accordingly.

choose wisely.


cheers

R

 

[Archlute]

All this debate/discussion about whether you are an OEC or YEC advocate is rather intellectually boring I must say.

I do not believe in evolutionary theism.

To try and prove by debate/discussion that OEC or YEC is the correct belief system is like children arguing in the playground.

We are a people of faith and we will be judged accordingly.

choose wisely.


cheers

R

That is putting it in a rather simplistic manner.

As has been said before, the approach that one takes in interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis will have a direct effect upon how one views the interpretation of other parts of Scripture, and will have a bearing on the understanding of related doctrines. We may all be "people of faith", but as James says, teachers will be judged with a stricter judgment. I shouldn't think that the ability for an issue to generate intellectual excitement among ministers of the Word should be our main reason for sifting the truth of an issue.

 

[Confessor]

Welcome to the land of geocentrism.

CT

Where does exegesis require geocentrism?

When you use the criteria used above:

"If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical."

Then you are without any other options than geocentrism. That is why you would be hard pressed to find anyone throughout church history who held to anything other than geocentrism before Galileo/Copernicus etc.

The usual first text that is pointed to is Joshua's long day

Joshua 10:12-13

12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

CT

That is the only text to demonstrate geocentrism? It is ambiguous. It allows for several interpretations within it and does not necessitate a belief in geocentrism. Someone reading that could interpret that the sun literally stopped, or that the sun in the sky, according to the observer, appeared to stop moving.

My point is that Genesis 1 is quite clear and straightforward, and others have to insert their meaning into it. I guess I should not have been so stringent as to say we should ignore all science when exegeting (my apologies), but we should make sure not to insert meanings when no true ambiguity exists. We should not allow science to supersede or falsify Scripture, although it can help to clear up ambiguities.

Thanks for pointing out my flaw.

 

[Confessor]

All this debate/discussion about whether you are an OEC or YEC advocate is rather intellectually boring I must say.

I do not believe in evolutionary theism.

To try and prove by debate/discussion that OEC or YEC is the correct belief system is like children arguing in the playground.

We are a people of faith and we will be judged accordingly.

choose wisely.


cheers

R

That is putting it in a rather simplistic manner.

As has been said before, the approach that one takes in interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis will have a direct effect upon how one views the interpretation of other parts of Scripture, and will have a bearing on the understanding of related doctrines. We may all be "people of faith", but as James says, teachers will be judged with a stricter judgment. I shouldn't think that the ability for an issue to generate intellectual excitement among ministers of the Word should be our main reason for sifting the truth of an issue.

Agreed. By no means am I calling OEC's heretics; I am simply pointing what I believe to be a doctrinal error.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Where does exegesis require geocentrism?

When you use the criteria used above:

"If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical."

Then you are without any other options than geocentrism. That is why you would be hard pressed to find anyone throughout church history who held to anything other than geocentrism before Galileo/Copernicus etc.

The usual first text that is pointed to is Joshua's long day

Joshua 10:12-13

12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

CT

That is the only text to demonstrate geocentrism? It is ambiguous. It allows for several interpretations within it and does not necessitate a belief in geocentrism. Someone reading that could interpret that the sun literally stopped, or that the sun in the sky, according to the observer, appeared to stop moving.

My point is that Genesis 1 is quite clear and straightforward, and others have to insert their meaning into it. I guess I should not have been so stringent as to say we should ignore all science when exegeting (my apologies), but we should make sure not to insert meanings when no true ambiguity exists. We should not allow science to supersede or falsify Scripture, although it can help to clear up ambiguities.

Thanks for pointing out my flaw.

If there was actual ambiguity then why is something other than geocentrism never found in church history until "science" changed its mind?

There is a greater consensus in Church history concerning geocentrism than YEC.

CT