# Old Earth Vs. Young Earth



## Founded on the Rock (Apr 4, 2006)

I am inclined to take the Old Earth position based upon scientific observation but my allegiance is ultimately to the Word of God as is given in Holy Scripture.

Now this is not a very well formulated and there is speculation involved but I didn't know if this could possibly bring any middle ground...

Genesis 1: 1-2
"1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 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. "

Is the time that the Holy Spirit hovered over the water one singular day? Or could it be that the Holy Spirit hovered over the unformed Earth for what we would consider millions of years, causing the earth to be millions of years old. Another time span that I am unsure of is when Adam and Eve lived in the garden. I guess when you track to the geneology you have Adam's life span but is it possible that time is after the fall? (Could be seen as reading into the text but I figure I might as well put the argument out there).

Just some thoughts that ran through my mind... Any feedback would be great!

Brandon


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 4, 2006)

If we did accept that interpretation Brandon, the Holy Spirit is hovering but there is nothing creative happening as described in scripture. The only reasons we would have for reading millions of years into the text is to accommodate science and that is just not necessary. There are two ways to approach this topic. Believe that scripture is the ultimate authority and fit the evidence of science into it, or believe that science holds ultimate authority and make scripture fit the science. The second approach is deadly.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Apr 4, 2006)

Can we allow natural revelation to illuminate parts of Scripture that we find to be "difficult" to understand... 

I am firmly convinced that the best scientific evidence leads one to Old Earth. I don't think Scripture rules this position out neccesarily... maybe you could show how this view (old earth) is shown to be false from Scripture and then I could heartily accept any young earth evidence.

If it cannot be demonstrated that this position is false from Scripture, I don't know why the old earth view is not plausible.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Founded on the Rock_
> Can we allow natural revelation to illuminate parts of Scripture that we find to be "difficult" to understand...
> 
> I am firmly convinced that the best scientific evidence leads one to Old Earth. I don't think Scripture rules this position out neccesarily... maybe you could show how this view (old earth) is shown to be false from Scripture and then I could heartily accept any young earth evidence.
> ...



An appeal to natural revelation in this area is more problematic. Special revelation is by definition more clear. It was given precisely because we can't read natural revelation correctly, due to sin.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Apr 4, 2006)

I have a thought on this:

http://jdlblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/ancient-adam-and-old-earth.html

Would say more - posting via BlackBerry...


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> An appeal to natural revelation in this area is more problematic. Special revelation is by definition more clear. It was given precisely because we can't read natural revelation correctly, due to sin.




Where in Scripture is a map of where to find Jerusalem? 
--we actually have to look at the real world to find Jerusalem.
where in Scripture is the canon? the very index of the Bible itself, listing the inspired books?
--that list itself is part of history, general revelation, not part of Scripture.
where is the dictionary, the atlases, the word and language helps etc in Scripture?
--they are not there, they are part of general revelation. 

you are already using general revelation to interpret Scripture, the issue is how, not if.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Two can play at this game:

Looking at the stars, can you tell me how kidnapping is to be punished?
From examining the social lives of dogs, can we then deduce marital norms for humans?

Do you believe in the perpiscuity of Scripture?
I am not denying natural revelation. I am denying that natural revelation, _as interpreted by sinful man_ is clearer than special revelation, _especially on areas where special revelation most directly speaks._

If God has spoken clearly in his word, both natural and special, yet we fail to discern nature rightly, then it doesn't make sense to go to what we can't see properly instead of a clearer revelation.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



You might be thinking I hold to scripturalism, which I don't. I can understand the questions now. Scripturalism is to be distinguished from my view of special revelation.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Apr 4, 2006)

My point is that we can use general revelation as an aide in understanding special revelation. 

I don't know if this is a good example, but think of Judas' suicide.

Acts 1:18
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.)

Matthew 27:5
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

It appears we have an incomplete story here. Historians I have read (can't remember the reference... sorry) have stated that by looking at the field we know that he hung himself on a tree, and then feel from the tree to the ground where his body burst open. 

Natural revelation is not a means to find special revelation, but simply is an aide in confirming our understanding of special revelation.

I am certainly open to correction... I'm just musing over the issue and trying to clarify my thoughts.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Founded on the Rock_
> My point is that we can use general revelation as an aide in understanding special revelation.
> 
> I don't know if this is a good example, but think of Judas' suicide.
> ...



I think I see what you are saying, but I need a few clarifications: are you putting logical inferences in the same category as natural revelation? 

Using logical inferences et al is not problematic for me, but are you inferring from the biblical text or from natural data?


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Apr 4, 2006)

I hope this will answer your questions.

I believe that if Scripture is unclear on a subject, that natural revelation can be a means to clarify what the Scripture has said. We never take natural revelation on its own though, we must always make sure we are being trustworthy to the text of Scripture and not make a mockery of it. Outside of special revelation we would be completely lost and would not be able to interpret natural revelation. I do believe that at times, natural revelation can be very helpful in understanding speacil revelation.

Though I could be mistaken, this is the type of logic I use on the issue of old earth versue young earth.

As I have said, I am very open to correction. I want to be obedient to God and His Word.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 4, 2006)

I would just suggest that you look at both sides of the issue, when it comes to "examining the evidence." It is a simple fact that both "young earthers" and "old earthers" will choose _what_ evidence to give weight to. Certain evidence, if interpreted according to one pre-interpretive grid, will yield a satisfactory sense, but won't according to another. Each "side" will offer alternative explanations for facts presented by the other side, or relegate the other evidence to the "we don't understand that yet" stack.

But it is important to note that due to pre-committments and limitations of knowledge, no one is able to "fit" every fact into the completed portion of their "puzzle".

But really, the worst lie going out there is the claim to "objectivity" touted by the naturalistic empericists. The boast at their being "scientific" and not "religious". But their claim to knowledge is rooted in faith-committments no less total than the most ardent theist or spiritualist. At least you can be glad you are beginning with some knowledge of your own biases and non-negotiable axioms. If you can't admit those up front, you are doomed to a true "blind dogmatism" regardless of your stance.

Grace to you, as you explore these issues.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Apr 4, 2006)

No one has commented on my thoughts in my first post... Perhaps I am mis-guided, or perhaps I have hit upon something... I am just looking for possible feedback and potential problems with the position mentioned in the first post


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Founded on the Rock_
> No one has commented on my thoughts in my first post... Perhaps I am mis-guided, or perhaps I have hit upon something... I am just looking for possible feedback and potential problems with the position mentioned in the first post



You are referring to the gap theory, and Bruce did respond to it. I will try to give a response when less busy.

[Edited on 4--5-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## JohnV (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Founded on the Rock_
> I am inclined to take the Old Earth position based upon scientific observation but my allegiance is ultimately to the Word of God as is given in Holy Scripture.
> 
> Now this is not a very well formulated and there is speculation involved but I didn't know if this could possibly bring any middle ground...
> ...



Brandon:
As soon as there is change, there is time: a before and an after. So that rules out the possibility of time coming in after the Fall. Besides, how can there be millions of years before the first day, but no time until after the Fall? How is that possible?

Your possible "middle ground" is actually no middle ground at all. All it really does is try to add millions of years to the _ex nihilo_ creation. You can't explain by this theory how the sun was not there on day three, but it was there on day four. 

Again, this revolves around what you believe _natural revelation_ to be. Bruce advises that you separate _scientism_ from science, when thinking about what natural revelation reveals to us. We're not stuck in some muddy complexity of points of view necessarily. There is a difference between not knowing, and admitting that, and in believing that you have to fill in the blanks for your knowledge to be complete. That's ridiculous, it seems to me. Filling in the blanks with our own prejudices or precommitments, or whatever, is not completing our knowledge at all. Some things we just don't know and can't know, and the wise man is the one who admits it. 

We have God's Word on it, though, that He made the heavens and the earth in the space of six days. And we can also know Him through that Word and the Holy Spirit. So we can know full well that He is trustworthy. Therefore, if He said that He created the world in the space of six days, then we know we have a trustworthy witness, and can say dogmatically that the world was created in six days. We have God's Word on it.

You can look at natural revelation objectively. If you couldn't, then how would you really know if you stayed on the road the next time you drive to church? How can you know that you really got there? It isn't just reading a map to get from point A to point B; its where you read your Bible too. So don't get lost in grids, and perspectives. That's where modern scientific theory is right now, and that's why they can't imagine that a tree be there one day when it wasn't there the day before; they have no room for such a possibility. That's where the need for millions of years comes from. 

Are there rings in the trees that grew in the Garden of Eden? What about the trees outside the Garden? Who knows? It's hard to imagine a tree without them, and also hard to figure how a tree grows in a healthy state without them. It doesn't just show age, but also serves a purpose, adding strength as well as suppleness to its bearing against winds and seasons. How can a tree grow without rings? So does a tree have rings the day after it was created? Likely so. But do they show age via the rings, like they do now? Of course not. Neither does the sun show age by being there, though through natural means it would take many millions of years to form on its own. 

If man can make a light bulb, and go beyond the natural means of it coming into being on its own, the surely God can. How old is the apparent age of a light bulb manufactured only last week? Well, if you try to figure it out by adding millions of years, you'll never get it right. That's where this theory you proposed is going.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Apr 5, 2006)

*Looking at the stars, can you tell me how kidnapping is to be punished?
From examining the social lives of dogs, can we then deduce marital norms for humans?*

from what is we can not determine what ought to be, Hume pointed that out.
laws are what ought to be's, science can help but not determine what laws are good.

you can use science to move from social lives of dogs to marital norms but you are not doing science, you are doing ethics. you have exceeded science's grasp. but that doesn't stop people from claiming that it is a logical extension of their science, it isn't. and that is the big point, science is not scientism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> *Looking at the stars, can you tell me how kidnapping is to be punished?
> From examining the social lives of dogs, can we then deduce marital norms for humans?*
> 
> ...



I don't disagree. I think you thought that I was operating from a Scripturalist standpoint, which I wasn't. Perhaps my first response was unclear. It could have been.


----------

