# Piper and Keller on Creationism. A Couple Interesting Audio Clips



## ACBRown (Jun 5, 2010)

Here recently, I started a thread on the age of the earth. Since then I've been doing some sniffing around, trying to locate resources. Along the way, I stumbled across a couple perspectives the good folks here at the PuritanBoard might enjoy discussing.

First, check out Piper's position on Creationism. It's interesting. Go to www.soundofdoctrine.com (I've posted the relevant threads there).

Second, is anyone familiar with Sailhamer's view? It's Piper's view. What are your thoughts? I'm just starting to chew on it.

Third, any thoughts on Keller's perspective?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jun 5, 2010)

They explained Sailhamer's view later on the DG blog: Sailhamer's View of Creation


----------



## ACBRown (Jun 5, 2010)

Oh, bravo! Thanks man.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jun 5, 2010)

No problem.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 5, 2010)

_Since the Hebrew word translated "beginning" refers to an indefinite period of time, we cannot say for certain when God created the world or how long He took to create it. This period could have spanned as much as several billion years, or it could have been much less; the text simply does not tell us how long. It tells us only that God did it during the "beginning" of our universe's history. 

The second act of God recounted in Genesis 1 and 2 deals with a much more limited scope and period of time. Beginning with Genesis 1:2, the biblical narrative recounts God's preparation of a land for the man and woman He was to create. That "land" was the same land later promised to Abraham and his descendants. It was that land which God gave to Israel after their exodus from Egypt. It was that land to which Joshua led the Israelites after their time of wandering in the wilderness. According to Genesis 1, God prepared that land within a period of a six-day work week._


This is a unique position in my reading experience. The world could have been around for billions of years, but God prepared it in six literal days, so for all those billions of years there were no plants or fish or birds or animals, and no sun/moon/stars ( or at the very least they would not be visible)?

Seems rather strange.....usually the old earthers need their view for fossils and geological strata, but this position has no plants or sea creatures? And the gathering of the seas and emergence of dry land is in the literal six days. So why would somebody choose to even believe this?

Do they think all the plant and animal life was around for billions and millions of years and Gen 1:2 etc is talking about a separate special place?

Wierd. Isn't it easier to just be a young earther starting with day one?


----------



## ACBRown (Jun 5, 2010)

Yeah, I'm getting ready to sit down and read the book review. But yes, it does, at first blush, seem a bit odd. Nevertheless, I want to give it a good shake.


----------



## goodnews (Jun 5, 2010)

ACBRown said:


> Here recently, I started a thread on the age of the earth. Since then I've been doing some sniffing around, trying to locate resources. Along the way, I stumbled across a couple perspectives the good folks here at the PuritanBoard might enjoy discussing.
> 
> First, check out Piper's position on Creationism. It's interesting. Go to www.soundofdoctrine.com (I've posted the relevant threads there).
> 
> ...



Austin, what I've read so far on Sailhamer (and Perman's) view is extrememly interesting. Many thanks. I look forward to finishing the read as time allows. As to Keller I would first admit that he is my favorite contemporary author/preacher. And his stance on our subject is very sound. He definitely argues against secular naturalism. And He believes the Gospel is the best argument against SN rather than science disproving evolutionism as a means of proving the existance of God. However, he does seem somewhat sympathetic to the "evidences" of evolutionary biological processes and their use by God in creation. Now, I fully recognize the mechanisms of natural selection within the kinds. But, I think Dr. Keller allows for more than that, although he's careful to point out that whatever mechanisms got us to where we are today were authored and controlled by God. I really think his motivations are to keep the secularists and evolutionary biologists interested in the conversation with evangelicals. Anyway, that's how I read him, I could be wrong.


----------



## ACBRown (Jun 5, 2010)

Oh, you are very welcome. I'm finding it fascinating as well! I just finished reading through it, but not deeply. And I find myself thinking several things all at the same time. (1). Some of the arguments appear convincing. (2) I like the strong connection between 1:2ff and the Promised Land. It makes a lot of sense. (3) A few things felt forced. One that is still lingering in my mind is the point that Gen 1:14 is not talking about an act of creation. I need to chew on this further. And (4) Since I don't know Hebrew, it leaves me feeling a bit unhinged . Many of the arguments depend upon knowing the original language, and knowing it apparently well.

As for Keller, thanks for the info. It is much apprecaited. And, hey, he's one of my favorites as well  


Blessings,

Austin


----------



## jason d (Jun 7, 2010)

*Andrew Kulikovsky's response to Sailhamer's view*

Unbinding the rules


----------



## alhembd (Jun 7, 2010)

ACBRown said:


> Here recently, I started a thread on the age of the earth. Since then I've been doing some sniffing around, trying to locate resources. Along the way, I stumbled across a couple perspectives the good folks here at the PuritanBoard might enjoy discussing.
> 
> First, check out Piper's position on Creationism. It's interesting. Go to www.soundofdoctrine.com (I've posted the relevant threads there).
> 
> ...


 
The position of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland - Reformed in Doctrine, Worship and Practice), which requires total subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith from all its officebearers, is that the six days are six literal days. And therefore, the earth is less than six thousand years old.

This stance differentiates us from the Free Church out of whom we came. The Free Church generally side with Hugh Ross, who argues for an old earth. Regrettable, Thomas Chalmers was of this view.

When many ministers, to defend the rights of the Church in 1843, came out of the State Church of Scotland, there was already a division amongst them. Generally, the ministers of the Lowlands favoured the more modern view. Whereas, the ministers of the Highlands strongly held to the six-day view, in that it indeed is the literal sense of Confession, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

I believe that six-day creationism is now the prevailing view amongst RPCNA ministers, is it not? I think all the younger ministers in the RPCNA are of that mind.


----------



## ACBRown (Jun 7, 2010)

Yes, I believe the prevailing view among RPCNA ministers (if not all) is six literal days. I know my pastors are.

It is interesting that Piper's view would be A) The days of Genesis are 6-24 hour periods of time (normal days), but B) the earth may be very old. Would the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland permit that?


----------



## alhembd (Jun 7, 2010)

ACBRown said:


> Yes, I believe the prevailing view among RPCNA ministers (if not all) is six literal days. I know my pastors are.
> 
> It is interesting that Piper's view would be A) The days of Genesis are 6-24 hour periods of time (normal days), but B) the earth may be very old. Would the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland permit that?



Austin,

No. Not from office-bearers, anyway. Total subscription to the Westminster Confession is required of office-bearers. Since chapter 4, article 1 of the Confession says: "It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good," this precludes anything but believing that everything was created in the space of six days. But also, the genealogies of Genesis preclude believing that the earth could be very old, even though only created in six days.


----------



## Just1covenanter (Jun 8, 2010)

I had to subscribe to a strict 6-day creation to be ordained as RE in our presbytery. I do believe that God intends for us to understand the creation period as 6 24-hour days. But I do not believe that this was the purpose or the burden of the book of Genesis. Indeed, I think it's a secondary issue, and not one (as many believe) on which the authority of scripture hangs.


----------



## ACBRown (Jun 8, 2010)

Thanks David and Albert! I appreciate the thoughts.


----------



## Meginomai (Jul 4, 2010)

I know this thread is nearing a month old, but I wanted to chime in because I've been reading on my own for awhile about evolutionary theory and the claimed age of the universe. 

It is disappointing to me that Christians feel they need to reinterpret the Bible so as to fit theories of the modern scientific community. It is disturbing that Dr. S feels the evidence for a "billions" of years old earth is "overwhelming". I have been reading much on this subject and there are many unprovable assumptions-especially uniformitarianism-which are necessary to establish an old earth. The argument for an old earth is so objectively lacking that I would go so far as to say there is no reason we as Christians should dignify it. It is no more "scientific" than the philosophy of common descent; it is speculation upon speculation, and it often begs the question. 

I'm going to paste a (long) post I posted on a forum filled with atheists because it's concerning the inaccuracy and unproven assumptions of the dating methods used to claim an old universe and earth. 

Before I do, I also wanted to say I read the link, *Science, the Bible, and the Promised Land; An Analysis of John Sailhamer's Genesis Unbound* and although I am not a scholar, I am surprised at how grossly the interpreter errs. It just goes to show that when someone wants to fit their wrong theology into a text, they will make an exegetical mess. I was actually planning on writing a long post pointing out these errors, but as I read, they compounded, and I realized I would never have time. Also, I'm sure it's already been done (I also read "Unbinding the rules..." by Kulikovsky and he really only scratches the surface, focusing on creation errors, not all the mistakes in exegesis and logical fallacies in the arguments), but I couldn't find a comprehensive refutation in my brief time searching. I trust brothers here will retain the orthodox, biblical view.

Here is the post:

First of all, carbon dating is only accurate to a maximum of about 40,000 to 50,000 years even if you grant the evolutionists' assumptions, so when you talk about "millions" and "billions" of years old, you're talking about radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, chlorine-36 dating, etc.

In the case of carbon dating, talkorigins.org (the pro-evolutionist site made specifically to debunk creationism) admits there are varying amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere at a given time:

Quote:
Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration.
Talkorigins also admits the limits of obtaining an accurate correction:

Quote:
Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years.
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating

Beyond 8-9k years, it cannot be said to be very accurate in a large number of cases. 

From Beta Analytic, Ltd., the largest radio carbon dating lab in the world, I found some delightful tidbits:

Quote:
i. Expected sample age

Labs ask clients on the expected age of the radiocarbon dating samples submitted to make sure that cross-contamination is avoided during sample processing and that no sample of substantial age (more than 10,000 years) must follow modern ones.
Archaeology and Radiocarbon Dating | Beta Analytic

In simple English, the lab asks the client what age they want and makes sure they get it. If you say, "No, they just want to avoid cross-contamination", so your argument is that the way in which they go about this is not through their own, objective, empirical testing, but through asking the client their opinion of what age they think the sample should be? Are you serious? This is the bastion of empiricism and objective evidence you boast about all the day long?

Second, from the same source:

Quote:
Radiocarbon Dating Results
Interpretation of radiocarbon dating results is not straightforward, and there are times when archaeologists deem the carbon 14 dating results “archaeologically unacceptable.” In this case, the archaeologist rejected the radiocarbon dating results upon evaluation of the chronology of the excavation site.

There are many possible reasons why radiocarbon dating results are deemed “unacceptable.” It can be that there is an underlying depositional problem, or an unsuspected contamination, or even a lab problem. In either of the cases, it is still worthwhile to carefully consider why the radiocarbon dating results were deemed unacceptable.
So if archeologists simply say, "Nah, I disagree", or "This is archeologically unacceptable", that is sufficient to reject the C-14 results, to dismiss them and throw them out the window? At the very least this proves the dating method is nowhere near definitive, otherwise this would be an impossibility (or fraud). And where I thought Creationists saying evolutionists pick and choose what dates they want was unlikely, here I see the world's largest radiocarbon dating lab admitting it right on their web page. 

A good (albeit Christian) link for you to read if you care about learning about this subject is:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rove-the-bible

One of the keys to the above link is the evolutionist's necessary assumption of the truth of evolution and the corresponding old earth in order to set the constant ratio of C-12 to C-14 (1 to 1 trillion) for their calculations used in the carbon dating method. If this assumption were changed or unknown, the results would be vastly different or unknowable. And it should be pointed out that using the assumption of millions/billions of years in order to set a constant in your calculation for a dating method is begging the question (!).

Another key to the above link is in the RATE testing, if you read up about that. 

Lastly, a word about the dating methods I mentioned above, which are used for obtaining the "millions" and "billions" results. If you study this, those methods are not reliable for some similar reasons radiocarbon dating isn't reliable--they depend on assumptions that no one can prove:

Quote:
Indeed, there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements:

For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:

1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.

2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.

3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.

4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.
- Radiometric Dating Game - inaccurate

Because all dating methods demand key assumptions which cannot be proven (hence why this is "historical science", and not "science" in the sense of rock-solid, absolute, repeat-it-in-a-lab empiricism), and because evolutionists have inserted assumptions based on an earth that is billions of years old (which begs the question, assuming what needs to be proved as part of the dating method used to prove it), these methods cannot be accurate. 

For more reading on the problems of these dating methods, linked below is the pro-evolutionary source (albeit presenting them in the most favorable light possible):

Isochron Dating

You can also read:

- Radiometric Dating Game - inaccurate


----------



## Bern (Jul 4, 2010)

I think Piper's view is quite odd and even pointless ( I love Piper btw). As for Keller, while I like him in many other respects, I disagree with his view on creation. I think compromising plain teaching of scripture in order to accommodate modern scientific thought is a big mistake. If the world thinks I'm a fool for believing in a literal 6 day creation, then I'm happy to be called a fool. In terms of preaching the gospel to people, I'm not sure the issue is massively important, but if I was asked about it I certainly wouldn't make any attempt to accommodate secular viewpoints in the name of "not putting them off". God is in control, and His Holy Spirit will draw them, regardless of their objections to a 6 day creation. He did with me!


----------



## TimV (Jul 4, 2010)

Why would the duration of the "beginning" have anything to do with the time take to make something? I could say during the Ming Dynasty someone made a vase, and the time it took to make the vase has nothing to do with the duration of the Ming Dynasty.


----------



## torstar (Jul 4, 2010)

Just1covenanter said:


> I had to subscribe to a strict 6-day creation to be ordained as RE in our presbytery. I do believe that God intends for us to understand the creation period as 6 24-hour days. But I do not believe that this was the purpose or the burden of the book of Genesis. Indeed, I think it's a secondary issue, and not one (as many believe) on which the authority of scripture hangs.


 


it's not a secondary issue at all for many in my life. to some it seems to be above repentance and trust in Christ in order to be a Christian.

i think this is the pet issue of those who insisted on 100% compliance with a pre-trib premill eschatology in the 70s and 80s and to a lesser extent today.


----------



## lynnie (Jul 4, 2010)

Nice post Meg.

I find that old agers generally don't seem to include the ramifications of the fall. For example, there are creation scientists who believe that at the fall, when death and decay was introduced, the nuclear force decayed enough to allow the desintegration of some elements which before that were stable. Then there is the decreasing speed of light conclusion ( Setterfields work, excellently done) which means that if c decayed then e ( energy) values changed as well, and everything fits together. Zillions of books and links for people who want to read the science.

If you have some sort of mental conception of physics staying the same as it was when Adam was made, and don't factor in the curse on ALL of creation including molecular forces, then I guess it is easy to swallow the modern theories.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 4, 2010)

I haven't yet been able to listen to the links or read any books, but it sounds like Piper has stolen my view, that the Earth and Heavens were created unformed and unfilled before Day One was created on Day One.

The unformed and unfilled Heavens and Earth had to be created even five minutes before Day One, because Days One to Six do not deal with their creation.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/question-about-age-earth-60677/

It's not pointless for the unformed and unfilled Earth and Heavens to be created at the same time as the Heaven of Heavens and the Angels, and to be sitting there ready to be worked upon during the Six Days, because the Earth is at the very centre of God's plan, since He was to become a Man and not an angel and wanted to become a Man (Proverbs 8:31), and was to redeem Men, and do this greater work than the Old Creation and than the Redemption under Moses, on the Earth. 

The fact that the Earth and visible Universe was ready to be formed and filled reminds us that it was not a "Plan B" after the Angelic Rebellion. The Angelic Rebellion was all part of God's plan, along with Satan's temptation of Eve, and the Fall.

God's work of Redemption and New Creation in Christ has outstripped His work of the Old Creation and the Redemption under Moses, in revealing God's glory. Hence even the day on which the Sabbath is celebrated has been changed.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 4, 2010)

Rather than trying to take the scriptures and "fit them into" modern evolutionary science, I am seeing an increasingly sophisticated science developing around (for lack of a better term because this one can be loaded) intelligent design. 

Those believers I know that are following this movement (and not all those involved _are_ believers) are strong in their understanding and belief in both General and Special Revelation -- indeed they recognize that there cannot be a contradiction between the two, only errors in our understanding of one or the other due to our fallen nature.


----------



## Nate (Jul 4, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> I am seeing an increasingly sophisticated science developing around (for lack of a better term because this one can be loaded) intelligent design.


 
I'm interested in any references you can provide detailing this sophisticated science that is currently developing around ID.

Has anyone read Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything by Edgar Andrews? I think many in the PB audience would find it a good read.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 6, 2010)

The now classic is Michael J. Behe's _Darwin's Black Box_ which challenges evolution from a biochemical perspective. Stephen Meyer has written the _Signature in the Cell, DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design._ And Vern Poythress has a book called _Redeeming Science_. I haven't done much with the latter two -- the men in our church have been studying from a variety of sources. This fall, our pastor, a guy with biological training in our congregation, and my husband (a mathematician) will teach a Sunday school class on this topic..


----------



## Damon Rambo (Jul 6, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> The unformed and unfilled Heavens and Earth had to be created even five minutes before Day One, because Days One to Six do not deal with their creation.



Um, what Bible are you reading?

"Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, *the first day*. 


The text above clearly says "In the Beginning" (that is, on the first day ever), God "created the heavens and the Earth", and made light and separated it from the darkness. So yes, Day one deals with their creation.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 6, 2010)

TimV said:


> Why would the duration of the "beginning" have anything to do with the time take to make something? I could say during the Ming Dynasty someone made a vase, and the time it took to make the vase has nothing to do with the duration of the Ming Dynasty.


 
"In the beginning" simply means before time, at a point in the forever preexisting life of God prior to Creation, God created time, space, and matter.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 6, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> indeed they recognize that there cannot be a contradiction between the two, only errors in our understanding of one or the other due to our fallen nature.


 
It should be pointed out that the "information" from General Revelation is extracted by means of an epistemologically bankrupt system of thought: empiricism.

Empiricism is only a system that can observe; it cannot define or provide any sort of categorical statements; such as "man was created in the image of God," or "the earth is 6,000 or 6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 year old."

The Bible, on the other hand, provides nothing but categorical statements such as "David was King in Israel," or "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," or "Jesus rose from the dead."

Therefore, in comparing empriricism with Christianity, it is a no contest discussion, and empiricism cannot sway any matter of which the Bible speaks (such as the space of six days in which God created the heavens and the earth, or that the beginning is actually the beginning).

Cheers,

---------- Post added at 08:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 AM ----------




Willem van Oranje said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > Why would the duration of the "beginning" have anything to do with the time take to make something? I could say during the Ming Dynasty someone made a vase, and the time it took to make the vase has nothing to do with the duration of the Ming Dynasty.
> ...


 
Riley, this is incorrect. A beginning is part of something; part of time, in this instance. For instance, a journey from point A to point B includes point A in the diagram of the journey.

A--------------------B

A is the beginning of the journey, but it is still part of the journey.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 6, 2010)

Damon Rambo said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > The unformed and unfilled Heavens and Earth had to be created even five minutes before Day One, because Days One to Six do not deal with their creation.
> ...



So you're saying that not only light was made on the First Day but also the unformed and unfilled Earth and Universe. 

The accounts of creation I've read miss out the unformed and unfilled Earth and Universe. It was light alone that was created on the First Day. How can you have a Day without light and darkness? God created the First Day on the First Day, so He could have days to work on. We're not told when He created the unformed and unfilled Earth and Universe but it must have been before the First Day because there is no mention of Him creating and dividing anything but light on the First Day.

"In the Beginning" is not the "First Day", but before, because we're told what God created on the First Day and that was light.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jul 6, 2010)

Re: Chalmers Grantian Florilegium: "Snopsing" Chalmers and the "Gap Theory"


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 6, 2010)

Christusregnat said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> > indeed they recognize that there cannot be a contradiction between the two, only errors in our understanding of one or the other due to our fallen nature.
> ...


 
I was talking in the Hebrew sense.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 6, 2010)

> It should be pointed out that the "information" from General Revelation is extracted by means of an epistemologically bankrupt system of thought: empiricism.



Um, I'm not trying to make any argument for empiricism. Man's thinking is analogical; the creation is distinct from the creator and the only way we can know about either is because God has revealed it. That revelation exists in two forms has been well established in reformed circles, including the WCF.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 6, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> Re: Chalmers Grantian Florilegium: "Snopsing" Chalmers and the "Gap Theory"



I don't subscribe to any ruin/reconstruction theory. I just want to point out that we are not told that the unformed and unfilled Earth and Universe was created on any of the Six Days.

Interesting about Chalmers, who was at the beginning of the FC of S. I thought he had been behind the gap theory.


----------



## Meginomai (Jul 6, 2010)

NateLanning said:


> I'm interested in any references you can provide detailing this sophisticated science that is currently developing around ID.


 
Discovery Institute has many peer reviewed writings, books, and articles from an ID standpoint. 

trueorigin.org has some good material as well.

---------- Post added at 08:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 PM ----------

 


> "In the beginning" simply means before time, at a point in the forever preexisting life of God prior to Creation, God created time, space, and matter.


 
No, "Before the beginning" means before. "In the beginning" refers to the beginning.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jul 6, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Re: Chalmers Grantian Florilegium: "Snopsing" Chalmers and the "Gap Theory"
> ...



Lots of folks think that same thing. That is why George made the post. He wanted to clear it up.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Jul 6, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Tallach said:
> ...


 
I am not saying that the Earth was made on the first day; the text says it!

By your logic, God did not necessarily create Light on the first day either. You are allowing verse divisions, among other things, to effect your interpretation.

If I say "I made a cake. In the beginning, I got the pan and and sprayed it with oil. But it was empty. Then I turned on the oven and let it preheat. That was the first ten minutes," the phrase "first ten minutes" necessarily includes everything, including "the beginning." The "beginning", by definition in Genesis, is the beginning of the first day.

Nothing in the verses themselves, would hint at any kind of division there. In fact, the use of the Vav consecutive in verse 2, unequivocally links verse 1 with the following 4 verses. God created the earth, (and) the light (and) divided the light from the darkness, this was one day. That is how it reads. No division.


----------



## ZackF (Jul 22, 2010)

goodnews said:


> ACBRown said:
> 
> 
> > Here recently, I started a thread on the age of the earth. Since then I've been doing some sniffing around, trying to locate resources. Along the way, I stumbled across a couple perspectives the good folks here at the PuritanBoard might enjoy discussing.
> ...


 
I lean toward Keller's position also. He will no doubt tease it out more in the years to come.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jul 22, 2010)

Evolution and Science | Redeemer Sermons

keller on evolution, since everyone is referencing him.

(Keller has some insightful things to say in this talk... 1) that people my age don't discount miracles right off the bat. 2) that they have a perception that in order to be a Christian one must accept creation science and that is what leads them to not even consider the Christian faith.)

As for the "in the beginning" aspect that may lead to an old earth view, that's really interesting, as I had just gone searching through the Oxford Annotated Bible (which is the NRSV) and saw an explanation for why Genesis 1 was slightly different:

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."

this slight difference being "when"... 

There is also the NJPS: 

“When God began to create heaven and earth—the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Gen 1:1–3, NJPS).

I was looking for the source on why they had done this, and I couldn't really find it but I found this article which resolves some things:
Translating Genesis 1:1: Aristotle or the Big Bang? Part 1 (of 2) | Reasons To Believe

I think its a bad idea mainly because it suggests that time existed previously, perhaps even that God has always existed in time... that obviously does not cohere with our faith.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 30, 2010)

So God created the unformed and unfilled Earth and Heavens on the First Day _as well as_ light! 

First I've heard of it, but it may be right enough. When were the Heaven of Heavens and the Angels created and when did the Angelic Fall happen? Remembering that Heavenly time is co-ordinated to Earthly time because Earth is more central to God's plan than Heaven.

*Quote from Damon*


> I am not saying that the Earth was made on the first day; the text says it!
> 
> By your logic, God did not necessarily create Light on the first day either. You are allowing verse divisions, among other things, to effect your interpretation.
> 
> ...



What about the fact that each of the days start with "And God said..."? Nothing to do with verse divisions which are not inspired.

*Quote from Joy*


> I think its a bad idea mainly because it suggests that time existed previously, perhaps even that God has always existed in time... that obviously does not cohere with our faith.



It doesn't need to suggest this, as it says there was a beginning without saying that God had a beginning. 
I'm not here defending the Big Bang or any other scientific theory, by the way. Just trying to ascertain if the text says the unformed and unfilled Earth and Heavens - "the blank canvas" - was made on Day One or before Day One.

I've ironically heard standard Six Day Creationists take _a literary approach_ to getting round the first two verses to shoe-horn the creation of the blank canvas into Day One or Day One to Six. 

E.g. http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/modified-gap-theory-49879/


----------



## he beholds (Jul 30, 2010)

Damon Rambo said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Damon Rambo said:
> ...


 

I don't know the answer, but I know that this is a legitimate question for many: Is Genesis 1:1 an announcement or a part of day one? Or something else?
If it is a part of day one, we might be confused, because he created the heavens, the earth, and light all on day one? 
Or, did God create the heavens and the earth in the beginning, _before_ day one? And the six days goes on to explain what he added to whatever was there since the beginning?
Or, does "In the beginning" act as the chapter title. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. This is how he did it. Day one, light. etc. 

You see why this is hard to understand exactly what Gen. 1:1 is doing?

Your cake analogy does not sound completely kosher to me, but I am not smart enough to figure out why. Or it is kosher, and I am not smart enough to see it. 

Maybe the analogy needs to be:
In the beginning, I made cake and ice cream. The cake was without form. And I said, let me use flour (which I had to grind myself--ex nihilo). That was the first day.

I feel like this is saying that I ground flour the first day, not that I made the cake the first day. I just definitely made the cake before the time when we didn't have cake. 



"Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 31, 2010)

Hi:

I am not at all a fan of John Piper, and I believe that his mixing of Hedonism with Christian Theology is gross idolatry. There is, however, a very interesting answer to the problem of the day-age theory given by Dr. Russell Humphreys in his book, _Starlight and Time_. His Time-Dialiation/White Hole Theory is consistent with Einstein's General Relativity as well as the observed data of the universe. Dr. Humphreys' theory has been given some recent attention in Dr. John Hartnett's book, _Starlight, Time and the New Physics_.

In short Dr. Humphreys demonstrates how 6 literal 24 hour days can expire on Earth while millions of years transpire in the universe.

The books and DVD's are available on Amazon.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Brandon1 (Jul 31, 2010)

This is informative for those who are not aware of it: http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

It doesn't speak directly to the issue of Genesis 1:1, though I think its informative on how to deal with similar issues.


----------

