# Answers in Genesis responds to Modern Reformation Magazine



## sastark

See the links here: The Ruling Elder: Modern Reformation's Piece on Non-6 Day Creation Answered


----------



## Zenas

I'm not a proponent of Old-Earth Creationism, but I am a proponent of consistency and turthfulness. As such, I find this statement by Answers in Genesis to be a probable mistatement of the position of Old Earth proponents and these geologists: 



> Instead, these geologists believe that science interprets Scripture.



This is certainly not what Old-Earth proponents or these geologists would contend, nor, when considering their position, is it the result. Statements like this detract from real discussion and devolve the exchange, in one sense or another, into an exercise in accusation. 

Whether this is the logical conclusion of their argument or not, I doubt that these geologists would agree with this statement. Moreover, if one considers their argument; that specific revelation is silent on the age of the Earth and, therefore, general revelation is an ample and reliable source, then the assertion falls apart. 

Again, not a proponent of the system, but mischaracterizing others is a quick path to hitting a brick wall.


----------



## sastark

Zenas said:


> I'm not a proponent of Old-Earth Creationism, but I am a proponent of consistency and turthfulness. As such, I find this statement by Answers in Genesis to be a probable mistatement of the position of Old Earth proponents and these geologists:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, these geologists believe that science interprets Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is certainly not what Old-Earth proponents or these geologists would contend, nor, when considering their position, is it the result. Statements like this detract from real discussion and devolve the exchange, in one sense or another, into an exercise in accusation.
> 
> Whether this is the logical conclusion of their argument or not, I doubt that these geologists would agree with this statement. Moreover, if one considers their argument; that specific revelation is silent on the age of the Earth and, therefore, general revelation is an ample and reliable source, then the assertion falls apart.
> 
> Again, not a proponent of the system, but mischaracterizing others is a quick path to hitting a brick wall.
Click to expand...

 
Andrew, whether they admit it or not, their underlying presupposition is that general revelation tells us how old the world is, not Scripture. However, to reach this conclusion, you must believe either: 1. That the days of Genesis are not 24-hour days, or 2. That the genealogies of Scripture are inaccurate, or 3. Both 1 and 2. Whichever of those reasons you choose, you must denigrate the authority of Scripture to such a point, that general revelation becomes authoritative concerning the question of the antiquity of the earth.

I do not believe the Answers in Genesis piece (written by a PCA elder) misrepresents the authors of the Modern Reformation piece. He does expose their presuppositions, though.


----------



## Austin

As someone who has yet to state any exceptions to the Westminster Standards regarding Creation (though I am more and more comfortable with the Framework Hypothesis), I have to say that I agree with those who get so discouraged by the "Creation science" crowd. Why can't we just state that we are taking an educated leap of faith and that Scripture doesn't *necessarily * make any specific claims about what timeline God used to create. All we are bound by is that Gen 2:4ff is literal history.


----------



## sastark

Austin said:


> Why can't we just state that we are taking an educated leap of faith and that Scripture doesn't *necessarily * make any specific claims about what timeline God used to create.


 
Because to obfuscate where Scripture is clear is bad exegesis and incorrect theology.


----------



## Zenas

sastark said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a proponent of Old-Earth Creationism, but I am a proponent of consistency and turthfulness. As such, I find this statement by Answers in Genesis to be a probable mistatement of the position of Old Earth proponents and these geologists:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, these geologists believe that science interprets Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is certainly not what Old-Earth proponents or these geologists would contend, nor, when considering their position, is it the result. Statements like this detract from real discussion and devolve the exchange, in one sense or another, into an exercise in accusation.
> 
> Whether this is the logical conclusion of their argument or not, I doubt that these geologists would agree with this statement. Moreover, if one considers their argument; that specific revelation is silent on the age of the Earth and, therefore, general revelation is an ample and reliable source, then the assertion falls apart.
> 
> Again, not a proponent of the system, but mischaracterizing others is a quick path to hitting a brick wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew, whether they admit it or not, their underlying presupposition is that general revelation tells us how old the world is, not Scripture. However, to reach this conclusion, you must believe either: 1. That the days of Genesis are not 24-hour days, or 2. That the genealogies of Scripture are inaccurate, or 3. Both 1 and 2. Whichever of those reasons you choose, you must denigrate the authority of Scripture to such a point, that general revelation becomes authoritative concerning the question of the antiquity of the earth.
> 
> I do not believe the Answers in Genesis piece (written by a PCA elder) misrepresents the authors of the Modern Reformation piece. He does expose their presuppositions, though.
Click to expand...

 
Believing #1 only denigrates Scripture if Scripture takes an explicit stance on the subject. Those of the Old Eath crowd don't, ergo it's not denigration. Their argument is that Scripture doesn't take a stance as to the legnth of days or the period of time constituting creation, ergo general revelation is a reliable source to tell us how long it took.


----------



## PresbyDane

How Should God have had it written, for you to understand it as 6 consecutive 24 hour days with a day of rest at the end, if not the way it is put already?


----------



## Pergamum

I agree that the article seems to be beginning with general revelation before Scripture.


----------



## MMasztal

For what it's worth, I was an old earth creationist for many years having come to that conclusion with ashamedly little exegesis of Genesis. When I was hired to be a high school science teacher in a Christian school 3 years ago, I figured I needed to get educated on this issue as it would likely come up at one time or another. So I spent a few weeks during that summer researching the claims of the various positions and came to the conclusion that old-earth creationism was not Biblically defensible. I consequently embraced the 6-day creation account and found my understanding of the Bible has grown.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I read the article in MR and thought that the main argument was really weak. Essentially this is how the argument proceeded:

1. We're the professional geologists unlike that committee the PCA formed that didn't have any of us experts on it.
2. We have interpreted the geological data to reveal that the Earth has been here a very long time.
3. Our model works therefore it is correct.
4. Either that is true or it only appears to have been here a long time.
5. If God made it appear to have been here a long time then that would make God unethical.
Conclusion: The earth has been here a long time because God is not a liar.

I found it facile as the person who reads Scripture, on its plain face, could make the same argument about how God would be unethical for using the word "Day" when He really means "Age".

The geologists, however, only view the problem of "how dare God lie to what our scientific premises have yielded!" from only their myopic stance.


----------



## TimV

You're really getting good with your posts, Rich.


----------



## sastark

Zenas said:


> Believing #1 only denigrates Scripture if Scripture takes an explicit stance on the subject. Those of the Old Eath crowd don't, ergo it's not denigration. Their argument is that Scripture doesn't take a stance as to the legnth of days or the period of time constituting creation, ergo general revelation is a reliable source to tell us how long it took.



Scripture does take an explicit stance. OECs say it does not. Therefore, OEC denigrate Scripture.


----------



## Skyler

Zenas said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a proponent of Old-Earth Creationism, but I am a proponent of consistency and turthfulness. As such, I find this statement by Answers in Genesis to be a probable mistatement of the position of Old Earth proponents and these geologists:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, these geologists believe that science interprets Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is certainly not what Old-Earth proponents or these geologists would contend, nor, when considering their position, is it the result. Statements like this detract from real discussion and devolve the exchange, in one sense or another, into an exercise in accusation.
> 
> Whether this is the logical conclusion of their argument or not, I doubt that these geologists would agree with this statement. Moreover, if one considers their argument; that specific revelation is silent on the age of the Earth and, therefore, general revelation is an ample and reliable source, then the assertion falls apart.
> 
> Again, not a proponent of the system, but mischaracterizing others is a quick path to hitting a brick wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew, whether they admit it or not, their underlying presupposition is that general revelation tells us how old the world is, not Scripture. However, to reach this conclusion, you must believe either: 1. That the days of Genesis are not 24-hour days, or 2. That the genealogies of Scripture are inaccurate, or 3. Both 1 and 2. Whichever of those reasons you choose, you must denigrate the authority of Scripture to such a point, that general revelation becomes authoritative concerning the question of the antiquity of the earth.
> 
> I do not believe the Answers in Genesis piece (written by a PCA elder) misrepresents the authors of the Modern Reformation piece. He does expose their presuppositions, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believing #1 only denigrates Scripture if Scripture takes an explicit stance on the subject. Those of the Old Eath crowd don't, ergo it's not denigration. Their argument is that Scripture doesn't take a stance as to the legnth of days or the period of time constituting creation, ergo general revelation is a reliable source to tell us how long it took.
Click to expand...

 
What kind of day has a morning and evening besides a 24-hour one?


----------



## Marrow Man

Semper Fidelis said:


> I found it facile as the person who reads Scripture, on its plain face, could make the same argument about how God would be unethical for using the word "Day" when He really means "Age".


 


I would also add that this discussion/debate is not only about the length of days in Genesis 1, as the article makes clear. It affects the interpretation of other parts of Genesis 1-11 -- e.g. a global flood is denied.


----------



## Bookmeister

PresbyDane said:


> How Should God have had it written, for you to understand it as 6 consecutive 24 hour days with a day of rest at the end, if not the way it is put already?


 
There was no "evening and morning" for day 7.


----------



## Dearly Bought

> With a debate more than two centuries in the making, one might reasonably expect that Reformed scholars long ago resolved the issue.



...yup. Isn't it amazing that there was no consensus of Reformation and post-Reformation orthodox divines regarding this issue? I mean, you'd think that some important Reformed confession would make an explicit comment on the timeframe of creation...



....


----------



## MW

Dearly Bought said:


> I mean, you'd think that some important Reformed confession would make an explicit comment on the timeframe of creation...


 
I regard the Westminster Confession as an important Reformed confession and it certainly makes an explicit statement relative to the time-frame of creation when it limits the work of creation to "the beginning" and "the space of six days."


----------



## Marrow Man

I thought he was kidding.


----------



## MW

Marrow Man said:


> I thought he was kidding.


 
My apologies to Bryan. There are so many different views represented on the board these days it is hard to keep up with who holds what?


----------



## torstar

Marrow Man said:


> I thought he was kidding.


 
I pray people are kidding in making 100% adherence (the more belligerently the better) to 24/6 creation is the #1 test for whether a person is a Christian or not.


----------



## Casey

Bookmeister said:


> There was no "evening and morning" for day 7.


Scripture doesn't explicitly use the words "evening and morning" for each "day" mentioned in Gen. 2:17, 3:5, 3:8, 4:14, and, well, just about every other time the word "day" occurs in the rest of Scripture (including the Fourth Commandment). Are you going to conclude that those days don't have mornings and evenings? If the text actually said that the "seventh day had no morning or evening" you'd have an argument.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

torstar said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought he was kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pray people are kidding in making 100% adherence (the more belligerently the better) to 24/6 creation is the #1 test for whether a person is a Christian or not.
Click to expand...

 
I don't think anyone is saying that's the #1 test. It's more of a test to how high a view of Scripture you have.


----------



## Philip

> What kind of day has a morning and evening besides a 24-hour one?



A poetic one. I would wager that many of those who argue for OEC hold to the framework hypothesis.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

P. F. Pugh said:


> What kind of day has a morning and evening besides a 24-hour one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poetic one. I would wager that many of those who argue for OEC hold to the framework hypothesis.
Click to expand...

 
This is the problem with the OEC argument. Take literal historical narrative and make it poetry.


----------



## Beoga

Why can't poetry tell history?


----------



## Austin

Poetry *can * tell history, no one is denying that. But you have to admit that the Framework hypothesis is a very exegetically sound position for a Reformed person to take. Of course, to hold it one must state exceptions to the WCF, WLC, & WSC. But that said, I would rather avoid the issue most of the time. In my experience in the ministry over the years I have concluded that most people who aren't believers who want to argue this point are throwing up a smoke screen, trying to avoif the real issue, which is "Who do _*you*_ say I am?" when the issue comes up, I like to say that while I have stated no exceptions to the Standards on this issue, I find the Framework Hypothesis quite compelling. Indeed, I always make a point to include it when I am teaching on the subject, if only as an alternative, exegetically sound position that many solidly Reformed folks hold. For many people investigating Christianity, I would prefer that the issue of 24 hour days be taken off the table so that they can chew on the real issues of the faith: Christ and Him Crucified. This isn't 'bait & switch,' nor is it playing fast & loose w/ Scripture. Rather, it is putting 1st things 1st. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Supahrob

I have never understood the desire.to.make. any of Genesis 1 poetry. What is the reason.for using anything other than a plain reading? And if the word.day is poetry, then why not.the other words.... why not create, or man, or animals, or.water or.any other word or.concept in Gen 1. Why is the word "day" the only word here that anyone wants to make a poetic concept?

....please ignore any stray typos or weird punctuation, I typed this on my phone

Take Care,
Rob
-----
REAL men practice Biblical Hermeneutics
...even on Tapatalk!


----------



## Bookmeister

We do not make the word day poetic but scripture does use the word day in other than 24 hour "days." the framework theory does not say it is NOT 6/24, it says that is not the issue. The days of creation are set up in 2 sets of 3 parallels. Day 1 creation, day 4 filling, day 2 creation, day 5 filling etc. It very well may have been 6 literal 24 hour days, but that is not clear from the text.


----------



## Supahrob

Water is used.in.ways other than literal.water elsewhere as.well.... but i don't see anyone making that application here. It is.ONLY the word "day" that anyone feels.the need.to.assign a poetic or.symbolic.meaning. Why is that? There is nothing in the text that asks.for.a.symbolic reading... yet one.is offered. I sincerely can't help.but think that at least on SOME level it is an attempt to harmonize the Bible with mainstream science. 

Take Care,
Rob
-----

Please ignore any weird spelling, grammar or punctuation errors... or typos. I typed this on my cell phone.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

I would argue the text is clear that earth is young and that the days were real days. God says day, the word often used for a regular day in Scripture, and then God emphasized that it was an actual day by saying there was morning and evening. 

We can compare Scripture with Scripture:
In Mark 10:6, Jesus said "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Human beings were created at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning. also see Mark 13:19 & Luke 11:50-51

Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
We can see that our very work week is based off the literal historical event of the 6 day creation.

---------- Post added at 02:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 AM ----------




Bookmeister said:


> We do not make the word day poetic but scripture does use the word day in other than 24 hour "days." the framework theory does not say it is NOT 6/24, it says that is not the issue. The days of creation are set up in 2 sets of 3 parallels. Day 1 creation, day 4 filling, day 2 creation, day 5 filling etc. It very well may have been 6 literal 24 hour days, but that is not clear from the text.


 
If Framework says that 6/24 is not the issue and they see a "framework", why don't they just believe that in the framework and accept 6/24?


----------



## Bookmeister

sastark said:


> Austin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we just state that we are taking an educated leap of faith and that Scripture doesn't *necessarily * make any specific claims about what timeline God used to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because to obfuscate where Scripture is clear is bad exegesis and incorrect theology.
Click to expand...

 
Agreed, but scripture is not clear that it is a literal 6/24 creation


----------



## Skyler

P. F. Pugh said:


> What kind of day has a morning and evening besides a 24-hour one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poetic one. I would wager that many of those who argue for OEC hold to the framework hypothesis.
Click to expand...

 
Where else in Scripture are "morning and evening" used to refer to a poetic (i.e., non-24hr) day?


----------



## jayce475

Austin said:


> Poetry *can * tell history, no one is denying that. But you have to admit that the Framework hypothesis is a very exegetically sound position for a Reformed person to take. Of course, to hold it one must state exceptions to the WCF, WLC, & WSC. But that said, I would rather avoid the issue most of the time. In my experience in the ministry over the years I have concluded that most people who aren't believers who want to argue this point are throwing up a smoke screen, trying to avoif the real issue, which is "Who do _*you*_ say I am?" when the issue comes up, I like to say that while I have stated no exceptions to the Standards on this issue, I find the Framework Hypothesis quite compelling. Indeed, I always make a point to include it when I am teaching on the subject, if only as an alternative, exegetically sound position that many solidly Reformed folks hold. For many people investigating Christianity, I would prefer that the issue of 24 hour days be taken off the table so that they can chew on the real issues of the faith: Christ and Him Crucified. This isn't 'bait & switch,' nor is it playing fast & loose w/ Scripture. Rather, it is putting 1st things 1st.
> 
> Thoughts?


 
Seriously beg to differ Rev Austin on the point that not touching on creation is putting first things first, especially in light of Romans 1:20 and 21. Natural revelation is verily the reason why the unbelieving are without excuse. Also, you are calling the framework hypothesis an exegetically sound position and this is precisely what we who fully confess the standards reject.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


----------



## TimV

Yes, I didn't get that either



> But you have to admit that the Framework hypothesis is a very exegetically sound position for a Reformed person to take. Of course, to hold it one must state exceptions to the WCF, WLC, & WSC.


----------



## Casey

Bookmeister said:


> We do not make the word day poetic but scripture does use the word day in other than 24 hour "days." the framework theory does not say it is NOT 6/24, it says that is not the issue. The days of creation are set up in 2 sets of 3 parallels. Day 1 creation, day 4 filling, day 2 creation, day 5 filling etc. It very well may have been 6 literal 24 hour days, but that is not clear from the text.


Kline's purpose in creating "framework" was "to rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation 'week' . . ." so "that as far as the time frame is concerned . . . the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins." So it "very well may have been 6 literal 24 hour days" as you say, but a scientist will have to prove it for it to be so.

And given the amount of parallelism in the rest of Scripture, what prevents "framework" proponents from questioning the historical literalness of other passages throughout the Bible? Perhaps there should be other aspects that the scientist should be left free of biblical constraints regarding.

But as to the parallelisms Gen. 1 -- quoted from elsewhere on the PuritanBoard -- Wayne Grudem on framework (Systematic Theology, pp.256,257):

Several points may be made against the framework theory. 1. First, the proposed correspondence between the days of creation is not nearly as exact as its advocates have supposed. The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as “lights in the firmament of the heavens” (Gen. 1:14) are placed not in any space created on Day 1 but in the “firmament” (Heb. , ָרקיע H8385) that was created on the second day. In fact, the correspondence in language is quite explicit: this “firmament” is not mentioned at all on Day 1 but five times on Day 2 (Gen. 1:6–8) and three times on Day 4 (Gen. 1:14–19). Of course Day 4 also has correspondences with Day 1 (in terms of day and night, light and darkness), but if we say that the second three days show the creation of things to fill the forms or spaces created on the first three days, then Day 4 overlaps at least as much with Day 2 as it does with Day 1. Moreover, the parallel between Days 2 and 5 is not exact, because in some ways the preparation of a space for the fish and birds of Day 5 does not come in Day 2 but in Day 3. It is not until Day 3 that God gathers the waters together and calls them “seas” (Gen. 1:10), and on Day 5 the fish are commanded to “fill the waters in the seas” (Gen. 1:22). Again in verses 26 and 28 the fish are called “fish of the sea,” giving repeated emphasis to the fact that the sphere the fish inhabit was specifically formed on Day 3. Thus, the fish formed on Day 5 seem to belong much more to the place prepared for them on Day 3 than to the widely dispersed waters below the firmament on Day 2. Establishing a parallel between Day 2 and Day 5 faces further difficulties in that nothing is created on Day 5 to inhabit the “waters above the firmament,” and the flying things created on this day (the Hebrew word would include flying insects as well as birds) not only fly in the sky created on Day 2, but also live and multiply on the “earth” or “dry land” created on Day 3. (Note God’s command on Day 5: “Let birds multiply on the earth” [Gen. 1:22].) Finally, the parallel between Days 3 and 6 is not precise, for nothing is created on Day 6 to fill the seas that were gathered together on Day 3. With all of these points of imprecise correspondence and overlapping between places and things created to fill them, the supposed literary “framework,” while having an initial appearance of neatness, turns out to be less and less convincing upon closer reading of the text.​


Bookmeister said:


> Agreed, but scripture is not clear that it is a literal 6/24 creation


Scripture is more clear than the Kline's rather frequent speculations.


----------



## Philip

Skyler said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of day has a morning and evening besides a 24-hour one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poetic one. I would wager that many of those who argue for OEC hold to the framework hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where else in Scripture are "morning and evening" used to refer to a poetic (i.e., non-24hr) day?
Click to expand...

 
Where else in Scripture is the phrase "morning and evening" used?


----------



## Tripel

Great article. Thanks for the link.

---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------




Semper Fidelis said:


> I read the article in MR and thought that the main argument was really weak. Essentially this is how the argument proceeded:
> 
> 1. We're the professional geologists unlike that committee the PCA formed that didn't have any of us experts on it.



I think it's totally valid to point out that the PCA committee lacked geologists in a study that has huge geological implications. I didn't gather from the article they were complaining that the committee didn't have "us experts", but rather geological experts at all. 



> 2. We have interpreted the geological data to reveal that the Earth has been here a very long time


.
The geological evidence IS overwhelming.



> 3. Our model works therefore it is correct.



The fact that their model works should make us pause and consider that it may actually be correct. Do you have a specific issue with the evidence laid out in the article? 



> 4. Either that is true or it only appears to have been here a long time.



Exactly. Either the earth is billions of years old, or it just happens to have that appearance.



> 5. If God made it appear to have been here a long time then that would make God unethical.



Their argument is more than that. Their emphasis on the earth having a rich evidence of _history_ is important, I don't think anyone on this thread has touched this issue. It's one thing for the earth to appear really old, and I could buy that God just created it that way. What I have a hard time buying is that God created a world with a rich history that never actually occurred. 



> Conclusion: The earth has been here a long time because God is not a liar.



I think the point about Romans 1:20 is fair, because God does indeed reveal himself in creation. Study of the earth is a _good_ thing, and that study has (so far) revealed an immense amount of history of the earth, such as the continents drifting apart. If none of that actually happened, don't you think that has an impact on what God is revealing about himself?



> I found it facile as the person who reads Scripture, on its plain face, could make the same argument about how God would be unethical for using the word "Day" when He really means "Age".



I know this has been brought up in many other threads, but the same could be said about God using the phrase "the sun stood still" when he really meant "the earth stood still". No, it was not unethical for him to use such language through Joshua, because frankly, whether the universe is geocentric or heliocentric is not what's important in that historical account. What was important was a miracle occurred on that day. Similarly, what's important in Genesis 1 is not the unit of time measurement God used to create the Earth. What's important is that God, who is and always has been, created a world that is full of perfect order and creativity with his greatest creation placed right at the center of it.


----------



## Philip

The one weakness that I see with the Modern Reformation article (which AiG didn't even touch on, oddly enough) is a fundamental assumption of science as it has been practiced in the past five hundred years: this is the assumptions that natural processes have always worked at the same speed as they do today. That is to say, our methods always assume uniform rates of decay and change. This is not an assumption unique to OEC (YEC generally assumes it too) just pointing out that it's a very real assumption.


----------



## jayce475

Tripel said:


> Great article. Thanks for the link.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the article in MR and thought that the main argument was really weak. Essentially this is how the argument proceeded:
> 
> 1. We're the professional geologists unlike that committee the PCA formed that didn't have any of us experts on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's totally valid to point out that the PCA committee lacked geologists in a study that has huge geological implications. I didn't gather from the article they were complaining that the committee didn't have "us experts", but rather geological experts at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. We have interpreted the geological data to reveal that the Earth has been here a very long time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> The geological evidence IS overwhelming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Our model works therefore it is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that their model works should make us pause and consider that it may actually be correct. Do you have a specific issue with the evidence laid out in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Either that is true or it only appears to have been here a long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Either the earth is billions of years old, or it just happens to have that appearance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. If God made it appear to have been here a long time then that would make God unethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their argument is more than that. Their emphasis on the earth having a rich evidence of _history_ is important, I don't think anyone on this thread has touched this issue. It's one thing for the earth to appear really old, and I could buy that God just created it that way. What I have a hard time buying is that God created a world with a rich history that never actually occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusion: The earth has been here a long time because God is not a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point about Romans 1:20 is fair, because God does indeed reveal himself in creation. Study of the earth is a _good_ thing, and that study has (so far) revealed an immense amount of history of the earth, such as the continents drifting apart. If none of that actually happened, don't you think that has an impact on what God is revealing about himself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found it facile as the person who reads Scripture, on its plain face, could make the same argument about how God would be unethical for using the word "Day" when He really means "Age".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know this has been brought up in many other threads, but the same could be said about God using the phrase "the sun stood still" when he really meant "the earth stood still". No, it was not unethical for him to use such language through Joshua, because frankly, whether the universe is geocentric or heliocentric is not what's important in that historical account. What was important was a miracle occurred on that day. Similarly, what's important in Genesis 1 is not the unit of time measurement God used to create the Earth. What's important is that God, who is and always has been, created a world that is full of perfect order and creativity with his greatest creation placed right at the center of it.
Click to expand...

 
You're placing our human conception of natural revelation before considering scriptures. When you say that the geological evidence "IS overwhelming", it can likewise be pointed out that plain exegesis of scriptures also provide overwhelming evidence against the OEC position. Saying something like that means nothing. To claim that it is not possible for God to have created the world in such a way that man may have wrongly deduced a history of the earth is to imply that God is not omnipotent. "Let God be true and every man a liar", so when we read scriptures and they plainly state that all our investigations into the "immense history" of the earth are wrong, God is right and we are wrong.


----------



## Supahrob

See, when someone says that the geological evidence is overwhelming I kinda scratch my head. Smart guys like.Ken Ham and the gang at AIG or the folks at ICR examine..the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. So it, by definition, NOT overwhelming unless we just want to to call these folks.liars and deceives.

Let's not.forget, the also.claim there are SERIOUS errors in the mainstream dating methods. Agree or disagree, these guys are smart too... we shouldn't just brush em off.

Take Care,
Rob
-----

Please ignore any weird spelling, grammar or punctuation errors... or typos. I typed this on my cell phone.


----------



## Theogenes

P. F. Pugh said:


> The one weakness that I see with the Modern Reformation article (which AiG didn't even touch on, oddly enough) is a fundamental assumption of science as it has been practiced in the past five hundred years: this is the assumptions that natural processes have always worked at the same speed as they do today. That is to say, our methods always assume uniform rates of decay and change. This is not an assumption unique to OEC (YEC generally assumes it too) just pointing out that it's a very real assumption.


 
Philip,
I agree. It is also an assumption that science actually gives us truth, that our observations are true, etc. They need to read Gordon Clark's book, The Philosophy of Science.
Jim


----------



## nasa30

Bookmeister said:


> We do not make the word day poetic but scripture does use the word day in other than 24 hour "days." the framework theory does not say it is NOT 6/24, it says that is not the issue. The days of creation are set up in 2 sets of 3 parallels. Day 1 creation, day 4 filling, day 2 creation, day 5 filling etc. It very well may have been 6 literal 24 hour days, but that is not clear from the text.



If I am not mistaken, the word for day used in the creation account is "yom" and the other 2,300 times "yom" is used it not challenged as a 24 hour day. No one is arguing that Jonah was 300,000 years in the belly of the fish or that it took 790,000 years to march around Jericho. in my opinion, the only reason it is only said to not be a "day" in Genesis is because the proponents of evolution have to make it that way to fit their end result.


----------



## Austin

For what it's worth, here are a few points: 

1) Framework advocates re not day-age folks. According to the Framework view, "day" means "day" in the passage. However, the assertion is that Gen 1;1-2:3 is a polemical poem directed against the reigning pagan views of creation. Each point of creation addresses the fact that it is Elohim who created these things, which in the pagan worldview were the domain of a different deity. Thus, the heavens are not ruled by Ba'al, Zeus, Aten, Ra, etc, but by the LORD. 

2) According to this view, the literal history of the passage begins in Gen 2:4, which states "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..." The grammatical import of the passage is that what follows ("this") is history, and is to be read as such. Therefore, what precedes is not necessarily 'history' as we modern Westerners see history, it is rather an introduction to the theme of Genesis that the Lord is the God of creation. 

3) If this is the case, then there is no necessary need to read Gen 1:1-2:3 as 'history' in the same way we would read 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' as history. 

4) Just b/c something is Confessional does not mean that it is the only exegetically sound Reformed option. There are rules of Reformed hermeneutics that can still be strictly adhered to that, if followed, can land one in different places than the Westminster Standards. Just b/c we subscribe to a certain Confessional standard does not mean we are saying that it is the penultimate Biblical rule. The Standards are not inspired. 

5) As for putting 1st things 1st, the WCF itself states that there are certain doctrines which need to be taught carefully lest they distract those who need to focus on Christ, and not be discouraged in their faith (cf. WCF III.8). If we are to do this with God's decrees and election, how much more so something like the specific age of the earth? It's a hard enough pill for people to wrap their minds around the fact that, whatever else happened before Gen 2:3, what comes after is literal history (e.g., Adam & Eve created w/ no antecedents, a literal Fall, etc.). 

We do no service to Christ's Crown & Covenant when we major on minors. Do you all think Paul was all hot & bothered about 6-Day Creation when he went to the Areopagus? Or in Corinth, where he said, "I have resolved to know nothing while I was among you except Christ & Him crucified"? Let people stumble over their sin & the means of salvation, not something (as interesting & edifying to discuss) like the exact timeline of things which precede a passage that starts by saying "*This* is the history..." 

Shalom,


----------



## Philip

> It is also an assumption that science actually gives us truth, that our observations are true, etc. They need to read Gordon Clark's book, The Philosophy of Science.



It gives us facts about the observable world---to say otherwise is to preclude the possibility of science and be a skeptic, as Clark was. If my God-given senses contradict my interpretation of Scripture, which changes?


----------



## Austin

That reminds me of that old line from Groucho Marx: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"


----------



## Kevin

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the AIG piece did NOT fairly repeat the arguments in the MR article? As a "reflexive" 6/24 person, I am increasingly bothered by the level of the AIG/Hamite debate.

A couple of years ago I invited one of their speakers to our church & was struck by the similarity to the old Dispensational "prophetic" speakers that I had heard so many years ago. The treatment of those that disagree (not a TRUE christian) the magical thinking (the flood did it) that seems to be the stock in trade of this movement bothers me.

Thes guys could make the same points about their interpretation of Rev that they make about Gen... and it would be right at home in a pre-mil prophecy conference. It is not enough to make me change my view, but I can see why people have little respect for them & their "answers".


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kevin said:


> Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the AIG piece did NOT fairly repeat the arguments in the MR article? As a "reflexive" 6/24 person, I am increasingly bothered by the level of the AIG/Hamite debate.
> 
> A couple of years ago I invited one of their speakers to our church & was struck by the similarity to the old Dispensational "prophetic" speakers that I had heard so many years ago. The treatment of those that disagree (not a TRUE christian) the magical thinking (the flood did it) that seems to be the stock in trade of this movement bothers me.
> 
> Thes guys could make the same points about their interpretation of Rev that they make about Gen... and it would be right at home in a pre-mil prophecy conference. It is not enough to make me change my view, but I can see why people have little respect for them & their "answers".


 
I didn't even read the Answers in Genesis article as I find many reactions to naturalism to be over-reactions. I was reacting to the MR article and what I found to be poor Biblical scholarship and reasoning.

I have deep respect for the light of nature in man because he is created in the image of God. I don't despise the discoveries that men make with the tools of learning. The irony I find in these debates is because they have a model that works that they think they have to assume the naturalistic garbage that explains the model. I don't. I believe the observations about where we might find things in strata but men weren't there when the foundations were laid.

I have a degree in Nuclear Engineering and I don't need to jettison my knowledge about radioactive half-lives of elements or neutron cross sections if I believe the relative amounts of those elements were created ex nihilo in a short duration. The arrogance of those who speak dogmatically about billion year timeframes is that they dismiss, out of hand, that this could be the case. They even admit their models would continue to work but then say that it can't be right because God would be "deceiving" them because they've been taught that it just couldn't have happened this way.

I say that, with the author of Hebrews, that part of faith is trusting the witness of the One Who was there.


----------



## sastark

Kevin said:


> Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the AIG piece did NOT fairly repeat the arguments in the MR article? As a "reflexive" 6/24 person, I am increasingly bothered by the level of the AIG/Hamite debate.
> 
> A couple of years ago I invited one of their speakers to our church & was struck by the similarity to the old Dispensational "prophetic" speakers that I had heard so many years ago. The treatment of those that disagree (not a TRUE christian) the magical thinking (the flood did it) that seems to be the stock in trade of this movement bothers me.
> 
> Thes guys could make the same points about their interpretation of Rev that they make about Gen... and it would be right at home in a pre-mil prophecy conference. It is not enough to make me change my view, but I can see why people have little respect for them & their "answers".


 
Kevin, I assume you read the AiG piece, correct? Did you see the part where it was written by a PCA Elder? I have my doubts that he would be a premillennial dispensationalist, but perhaps slinging mud happens by those not affiliated with AiG, as well?

How, specifically, did the author of the AiG piece misrepresent the MR writers?


----------



## Kevin

Seth,

I made two points. One the article by AIG didn't fairly interact with the MR piece. That is self evident.

The second point was a personal observation about a particular AIG employee. That was fair comment.

I know that many reformed people support & write for AIG. However, my observation has been that, as a movement, it is the other end of the Bible examined according to dispensational pre-mil methods. That is not my view alone, non other then Henry Morris has claimed that this was his objective.

I agree with the meta-point being made by AIG-types, however I am underwhelmed by their presentation. this exchange did nothing to change my opinion. (and I should add, i am not claiming to be swayed bt the MR piece)

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ----------

BTW i did not accuse the elder-author of the AIG article of "mu-slinging", but of mis-representing the arguments of his opponent fairly.


----------



## LawrenceU

I cannot tell you how many people I have met who have little faith, or no faith in Scripture, that where brought up in conservative churches which allowed that the creation account in Genesis could be interpreted to mean something other than what the simple reading of the text leads one to believe. Once we begin to do that to Scripture where do we stop? If God's word says that he created the world in six days and puts the modifier of 'evening and morning' there so that it is even more clear who are we to go and redefine what God has defined. I really do think it is that serious - and that simple.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Kevin said:


> Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the AIG piece did NOT fairly repeat the arguments in the MR article? As a "reflexive" 6/24 person, I am increasingly bothered by the level of the AIG/Hamite debate.
> 
> A couple of years ago I invited one of their speakers to our church & was struck by the similarity to the old Dispensational "prophetic" speakers that I had heard so many years ago. The treatment of those that disagree (not a TRUE christian) the magical thinking (the flood did it) that seems to be the stock in trade of this movement bothers me.
> 
> Thes guys could make the same points about their interpretation of Rev that they make about Gen... and it would be right at home in a pre-mil prophecy conference. It is not enough to make me change my view, but I can see why people have little respect for them & their "answers".


 
What would a non magical comment concerning the flood look like?

CT

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------




Kevin said:


> Seth,
> 
> I made two points. One the article by AIG didn't fairly interact with the MR piece. That is self evident.



I do not accept that such is self evident. You many not have liked/agreed with the interaction but I do not see where fairness comes into play. (And I have not even read the longer version of the response)



> The second point was a personal observation about a particular AIG employee. That was fair comment.



I think that such is a red herring in this discussion. Either the author of this piece made the Dispensational move or it is irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## Austin

LawrenceU: I can say the same about people I know who came out of Fundy churches that uncritically accepted/pushed the Christian/Creation science stuff. Then they went to college and had no criteria for evaluating what they were hearing (e.g. the 'overwhelming' evidence for the age of the earth) since they'd learned nothing more than sticking their fingers in their ears & saying "6 days, 6 days, 6 days!" This has, in my observation, done more to undermine their faith in the rest of the message they were taught in church than has the reverse. 

(Let me say again, I have stated no exceptions to the Westminster Standards on this matter yet, though I am open to the Framework Hypothesis. I do not say these things as someone who is against a 6 day paradigm. However, I am greatly disappointed in the fundy/Dispensational exegetical and debating style of so much of the young earth stuff.) 

And, for what it's worth, one of my dearest friends in the world is a pathologist. When we were in college, he read every single book on young earth creationism (YEC) that he could find. (This is a man who also taught himself Greek & Hebrew in his spare time, and who reads more theology than I do.) After many years of assessing the evidence, his conclusion is that the YECs shade the evidence or selectively ignore evidence that contradicts their theories. In other words, much of the 'evidence' for YEC falls far below the standard of scientific inquiry. While I personally have not done the study, my trust in the competence of my friend's study, paired with what reading of the evidence i have personally studied leads me to accept his assessment. 

Again I ask: is it really worth arguing over these things with unbelievers, or even among ourselves? Wouldn't it be ever so much better to focus on those things that are _*the point*_, such as Christ & Him crucified? 

In the interests of full disclosure, I will admit to a personal dislike of standing athwart the entire scientific consensus with my fingers in my ears, accusing the entire scientific community of stupidity, arrogance, or deception while sounding like someone who is arguing against heliocentrism or for a flat earth. We already sound like fools (Paul's words), why add to it with arguments over something that is so incredibly beside the point? 

I would rather be used to bring one person to Christ than 100 to YECism. I would rather allow people to stumble over the doctrines of anthropology, Christology, hamartiology, etc, rather than how old the earth is.


----------



## LawrenceU

Austin, I understand exactly what you are saying. I am not a proponent of 'standing with fingers in the ears'. I am a proponent of engaging the text realistically and showing that there is evidence that is consistent with a literal interpretation of Scripture. One of the problems with some churches that do teach a literal interpretation is that they do so in an unrealistic manner. They do not teach the Bible as history so much as 'stories'. They take Noah and make him a cartoon character and the like.

I was a Biology major for more years than a Biblical Languages major in university. I am most definitely not anti-science.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Austin said:


> In the interests of full disclosure, I will admit to a personal dislike of standing athwart the entire scientific consensus with my fingers in my ears, accusing the entire scientific community of stupidity, arrogance, or deception while sounding like someone who is arguing against heliocentrism or for a flat earth.
> .


 
The Flat Earth Myth by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.


----------



## sastark

ChristianTrader said:


> Austin said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the interests of full disclosure, I will admit to a personal dislike of standing athwart the entire scientific consensus with my fingers in my ears, accusing the entire scientific community of stupidity, arrogance, or deception while sounding like someone who is arguing against heliocentrism or for a flat earth.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Flat Earth Myth by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Click to expand...

 
Amazon.com: Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern


----------



## Marrow Man

Yes, can we PLEASE dispense with the myth that everyone thought the earth was flat in 1492?!? And let's be consistent. One cannot reasonable believe in geocentrism AND a flat earth (the nature of the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic system _necessitated_ a universe of concentric spheres).


----------



## MW

Austin said:


> We already sound like fools (Paul's words), why add to it with arguments over something that is so incredibly beside the point?


 
The commitment to "understand by faith" is a basic principle which gives the followers of Christ a readiness to be accounted fools for Christ's sake. See 2 Cor. 4:13, compared with Psalm 116:10. Creation is a doctrine which is understood by faith, Heb. 11:3. The doctrine of creation therefore forms an essential part of the Christian's unique identity which separates him from the world and calls upon him to make a stand for Christ. It is not beside the point but is basic to the Christian worldview. The biblical teaching of "the beginning" carries important implications for the Christian as to the way he lives in society with his fellow men in humble submission to God. Our Lord Jesus Christ founded concepts like marriage and Sabbath upon it. The creation week as taught in Genesis one is fundamental to our understanding of the Sabbath, which forms, together with the duty to honour father and mother, the hinge upon which our obligations to God are turned in the direction of men. A Christian cannot properly view himself in relation to the world except as he has grasped the fundamental importance of understanding creation by faith. Who is this "Christ" whom the disciple follows if He is not the Eternal Logos by whom all things were made, the firstborn of every creature? We cannot know Christ as Lord except insofar as we receive Him as the One for whom all things exist and by whom all things consist.


----------



## Philip

> The creation week as taught in Genesis one is fundamental to our understanding of the Sabbath



The question is whether it's necessary to that theology that we dogmatically assert that it was a literal week starting October 28, 4004 BC.

I will believe the Bible regardless of whether or no YEC is true and the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> The question is whether it's necessary to that theology that we dogmatically assert that it was a literal week starting October 28, 4004 BC.


 
The date it started is irrelevant to the fact that it happened as the Bible reveals it.



P. F. Pugh said:


> I will believe the Bible regardless of whether or no YEC is true and the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.



"Young earth creation" as it is taught by "creation-scientists" is a scientific position mixed with unscientific axioms to create a new religious mythology. I am as much opposed to the confusing of faith and science as I am to their complete separation. There is no reason why a commitment to biblical revelation and six day creation should in any way be prejudicial to the normal process by which scientists arrive at their conclusions.


----------



## Austin

For what it's worth, I know the differences that make heliocentrism & flat earth views incompatible. That's why I said "against" heliocentrism and "for" a flat earth.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is whether it's necessary to that theology that we dogmatically assert that it was a literal week starting October 28, 4004 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The date it started is irrelevant to the fact that it happened as the Bible reveals it.
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will believe the Bible regardless of whether or no YEC is true and the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Young earth creation" as it is taught by "creation-scientists" is a scientific position mixed with unscientific axioms to create a new religious mythology. I am as much opposed to the confusing of faith and science as I am to their complete separation. There is no reason why a commitment to biblical revelation and six day creation should in any way be prejudicial to the normal process by which scientists arrive at their conclusions.
Click to expand...

 
How can it not prejudice the normal process of scientists? For example, you hold to geocentrism due to Biblical Revelation. How would that position not bias the normal process that scientists use?

CT


----------



## Marrow Man

Austin said:


> For what it's worth, I know the differences that make heliocentrism & flat earth views incompatible. That's why I said "against" heliocentrism and "for" a flat earth.


 
The difference, Austin, is that geocentrism was a real position held by the Medieval church, while a "flat earth" was not. Virtually no educated person has held to the latter view for more than 2000 years. One view was built upon the idea that the earth was one of many spheres, the other (mythical view) that the earth was flat. They could not have held to both simultaneously.


----------



## Philip

> heliocentrism was a real position held by the Medieval church



I believe you mean geocentrism.


----------



## Marrow Man

P. F. Pugh said:


> heliocentrism was a real position held by the Medieval church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you mean geocentrism.
Click to expand...

 
 You are correct. I'm fixing it. Technically speaking, though, heliocentrism is also not correct, since the sun is not the center of the universe, but this of course is not what you meant.


----------



## Zenas

Austin said:


> Again I ask: is it really worth arguing over these things with unbelievers, or even among ourselves? Wouldn't it be ever so much better to focus on those things that are _*the point*_, such as Christ & Him crucified?


 
As some atheists have correctly pointed out, if you are able to destroy the account of Genesis, you will find in the rubble the Son of God and the entire reason for Christianity. In Genesis we find the reason for the advent of the Messiah. No Genesis, no Jesus.


----------



## Philip

Zenas said:


> Austin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I ask: is it really worth arguing over these things with unbelievers, or even among ourselves? Wouldn't it be ever so much better to focus on those things that are _*the point*_, such as Christ & Him crucified?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As some atheists have correctly pointed out, if you are able to destroy the account of Genesis, you will find in the rubble the Son of God and the entire reason for Christianity. In Genesis we find the reason for the advent of the Messiah. No Genesis, no Jesus.
Click to expand...

 
Straw man---this is not the position advocated. Those who argue for framework argue that it is only Genesis 1 that is stylized, serving as a theological/apologetic prologue to the historical narrative.


----------



## Austin

Goodness gracious, y'all. 

When I made my point about heolicentrism and the flat earth, there was *a point* there. No one seems to have addressed it. As an educated person I know what these things are. I don't need pedantic lectures about them. The point is that there is only very rarely any benefit to adding to the objections of our cultured despisers by needlessly articulating and defending positions that (almost universally) do not advance the cause of reaching people with the cause of Christ. In my mind, blasting away at scientists about the details of Gen 1:1-2:3 does little more than make us look like a bunch of loons. I simply *do not *see Paul making similar issues a point of contention while on the Areopagus. It's almost like getting bogged down in politics, 'America's Godly heritage,' or defending the crusades. What do people need most? Is it to have a 6 Day view of creation, or is it to understand their personal need for Christ? 

Look, as I said repeatedly, *I have stated no exceptions to the Standards regarding Creation*. BUT, regardless of my personal views, I would much, much, *much* prefer to allow someone to come to Christ through our focus on the Gospel, and then let them grow in their understanding of Scripture over the long haul to the point that they can accept any specific timelines which may or may not be found in Gen 1:1-2:3. And besides, if both a literal 6 Day view and a Framework view are acceptable under the rubrics of Reformed hermeneutics, then why shove this stuff down people's throats up front? 

Regarding another point someone made, no responsible Reformed exegete is advocating throwing Genesis out the window. RTS stood up for this by asking for Dr. Waltke's resignation. But do you see them asking for any Framework adherent's resignation? Of course not. And that's b/c the people espousing the Framework view _*do not do violence*_ to the theological freight of Genesis, nor of Scripture. 

PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS COMMENT: The Framework view, as the only alternate view under Reformed hermeneutics, states that literal history begins in Gen 2:4. Thus everything before the creation of Adam & Eve (without antecedents) is deemed to be uncertain, as Scripture does not speak to it. BUT, everything after this, being addressed by Scripture, must be taken as history in the sense that we understand it. 

This does not mean that Gen 1:1-2:3 has no teaching points. Rather, that it affirms that God is the divine origin of all things, that before Creation began there was nothing, and that God "made all things of nothing... by the word of His power, and all very good." All the Framework view does is say that prior to the creation of the man and the woman in the Garden, God made it all, but we just don;t know how, or when, or in what manner. 

Why is this so difficult?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think it's "difficult" because it is an interpretational _fiat_. I find no reason to agree with abandoning the historicity of the first chapter of the Bible. One cannot simply downplay the significance of treating history as poetry if it is not. If it is not poetry then, in my mind, it's really no different when people improperly determine the genre they are dealing with and draw false inferences therefrom. There are always consequences to this. All of us are guilty of it as sinful human beings at times.


----------



## Brandon1

Rev. Olive,

I'll just point out that you say that the Framework view is the only alternative under the Reformed hermeneutic. The OPC Creation report lists 4, Framework, Analogical, Day-Age, & Days of unspecified Length (E.J. Young's view). Along with the 24-6 position, these 4 views have been regarded as upholding the Confession.

The Committee also does a good job studying how Presbyterians have traditionally thought on this issue. This may be a good place to start to see how American Presbyterianism has not been unified on this issue.

---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 AM ----------




Semper Fidelis said:


> I think it's "difficult" because it is an interpretational _fiat_. I find no reason to agree with abandoning the historicity of the first chapter of the Bible. One cannot simply downplay the significance of treating history as poetry if it is not. If it is not poetry then, in my mind, it's really no different when people improperly determine the genre they are dealing with and draw false inferences therefrom. There are always consequences to this. All of us are guilty of it as sinful human beings at times.


 
This is where the scholarship of people like Kline argues that there are contextual reasons to see a literary structure that some may term "poetic" but that does militate against the legitimacy of the historical account. It simply means that there are conventions that are used that place the details of the text in a certain light for certain reasons. 

Upon looking at contemporary literature and analyzing the text, some have concluded that a Framework view works best to explain all the relevant data. Part of the issue, at least from my perspective, is that Genesis cannot be read in a vacuum. It must be placed in its historical context and for myself, I find that a Framework or Analogical views actually do more justice to the text (in its historical context). I don't want to rehash all of Kline here, but I think that to call it interpretational fiat is to down-play careful scholarship done by Reformed scholars.

Many Godly brothers may disagree and I may be wrong. But I think there should be care taken in the motives we attribute to one another (On both sides!).

I will add my quick thoughts to the article. While I am not YEC, I don't find trying to interpret how God has acted without his help is a very good argument. There may be plenty of reasons why God made the earth with fossils in them that we are not privy to. To suggest that because we do not know, God must be a liar if the earth isn't old seems like a major step for me. That is like trying to argue that God likes 2 more than 3 because he gave us two eyes, two ears, two arms, and two legs because if he liked 3 he would have given us 3 of each. I just don't buy it and I don't blame my YEC brother's who don't either.


----------



## Marrow Man

More is dealt with in the articles that simply the historicity of Genesis 1-2:3. A global flood is rejected in favor of a local flood, and the reason is not because of exegetical issues in the first chapter of Genesis. It becomes "difficult" when those who argue against metaphysical naturalism (not science) are compared to "a bunch of loons" and "flat earthers" (a mythical straw man that needs to be forever dispensed with). How exactly is that helpful to the discussion?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brandon1 said:


> This is where the scholarship of people like Kline argues that there are contextual reasons to see a literary structure that some may term "poetic" but that does militate against the legitimacy of the historical account. It simply means that there are conventions that are used that place the details of the text in a certain light for certain reasons.
> 
> Upon looking at contemporary literature and analyzing the text, some have concluded that a Framework view works best to explain all the relevant data. Part of the issue, at least from my perspective, is that Genesis cannot be read in a vacuum. It must be placed in its historical context and for myself, I find that a Framework or Analogical views actually do more justice to the text (in its historical context). I don't want to rehash all of Kline here, but I think that to call it interpretational fiat is to down-play careful scholarship done by Reformed scholars.
> 
> Many Godly brothers may disagree and I may be wrong. But I think there should be care taken in the motives we attribute to one another (On both sides!)


I understand and agree that attributing motives is neither helpful nor in keeping with the 9th Commandment. I am simply pointing out the difficulty in closing the gap between a view that de-historicizes Gen 1-2:3 and then assuming that this is inconsequential. Even with the most fair representation of either side, this is going to be a cause of significant friction.

My problem with the MR article is that it is very patronizing to the view of a YEC on the basis of geological expertise. The exegetical grounds for their argument amounts to nothing more than an accusation of a lack of ethical purity on God's part if the way He ordered creation does not match their scientific presuppositions.


----------



## Zenas

P. F. Pugh said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Austin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I ask: is it really worth arguing over these things with unbelievers, or even among ourselves? Wouldn't it be ever so much better to focus on those things that are _*the point*_, such as Christ & Him crucified?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As some atheists have correctly pointed out, if you are able to destroy the account of Genesis, you will find in the rubble the Son of God and the entire reason for Christianity. In Genesis we find the reason for the advent of the Messiah. No Genesis, no Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw man---this is not the position advocated. Those who argue for framework argue that it is only Genesis 1 that is stylized, serving as a theological/apologetic prologue to the historical narrative.
Click to expand...

 
Do what? He asked why is it worth talking about things like the age of the Earth with unbelievers and I gave an appropriate answer. How does that then mean I'm accusing proponents of Framework of... whatever it is you describe?


----------



## Austin

For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to say people who adhere to the YEC position are "loons" or "flat earthers." If I were saying that, I would be calling myself a looney flat earther. (Again, I have no exceptions to the Westminster Stds in this matter.) Rather, my point is that when we ride this hobby horse we *look* like looney flat earthers to those who are "outside," which I don't think is constructive. 

Honestly, as I have participated in this discussion I think I am coming to the realization that I have not stated any exceptions b/c in this matter I am more comfortable in saying, "We confess/believe," and staying in submission to the broad stream of my theological inheritance. I am always very, very uncomfortable straying from "what has always, everywhere, and by all been believed." 

As a framework-adhering friend of mine has observed, if I weren't ordained I would probably feel a whole lot less uncomfortable dabbling in theological speculation than I am. After all, ordination is such a high calling, and carries such great weight that we should always be reticent-- very reticent-- to strike out on our own when it comes to the Church's teaching on any subject. Sola Scriptura must always be balanced by tradition, authority, and submission. (That's probably yet another reason that I love Martin Luther so dearly.) 

Shalom, and thanks for such a stimulating discussion!


----------



## Sgt Grit

Austin

I work at an University, and no matter how eloquently I answer unbeliever’s questions I will most likely end up looking looney in their eyes unless God is working in their hearts, and that goes for all of the revealed trust, and not just YEC. If I can say in my heart "thus saith the lord" then I should defend it to any unbeliever who asks.


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> How can it not prejudice the normal process of scientists? For example, you hold to geocentrism due to Biblical Revelation. How would that position not bias the normal process that scientists use?


 
I believe I have clarified in the past that men might create working models that are not geocentric which (1.) accord with accepted theory and (2.) work for practical purposes. For science to function properly it must assume things which biblical revelation rules out. If we don't allow science to assume "normality" there would be no standard by which to conclude that an event has taken place which is a "miracle."


----------



## Philip

> I believe I have clarified in the past that men might create working models that are not geocentric which (1.) accord with accepted theory and (2.) work for practical purposes. For science to function properly it must assume things which biblical revelation rules out.



In other words, a Christian doing science must hold to two contradictory principles? That is, in science, the sun is the center while in faith earth is the center? This sounds to me like an "upper-story leap" (to borrow a phrase from Shaeffer). By reason we know one thing while in faith we know its opposite? Are you really going to oppose faith and reason like this?



> If we don't allow science to assume "normality" there would be no standard by which to conclude that an event has taken place which is a "miracle."



But in this case science would be confirming what we know by faith. Only materialism/naturalism would deny the possibility of miracles---the presence of an actual miracle would serve as a defeater of naturalism.


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> In other words, a Christian doing science must hold to two contradictory principles? That is, in science, the sun is the center while in faith earth is the center? This sounds to me like an "upper-story leap" (to borrow a phrase from Shaeffer). By reason we know one thing while in faith we know its opposite? Are you really going to oppose faith and reason like this?



They are not two principles. They are ruled by one principle -- all facts are of God and interpreted by God. But we recognise two different spheres in which the principle operates -- natural and supernatural (or general and special) revelation.

Nor are they contradictory. Each sphere is functioning in a different way and to different ends. For example, there is such a pheomenon as scientific revolution. This phenomenon basically assumes as a matter of course that scientific enquiry is a matter of human investigation. The science of theology never assumes this as a working hypothesis. There is a faith once delivered to the saints. It is possible to make an once for all theological statement which is not possible for a scientist to make with relation to the mechanics of creation. Science deals with what it can prove. Faith rests on divine testimony. Hence two statements which appear contradictory are ultimately resolved by recognising that the two statements belong two different spheres or categorisations of thought.



P. F. Pugh said:


> But in this case science would be confirming what we know by faith. Only materialism/naturalism would deny the possibility of miracles---the presence of an actual miracle would serve as a defeater of naturalism.


 
We walk by faith, not by sight. What is learned by faith is not a matter of sight. What is known by sight is understood to fall short of the world which faith seeks. So there can be no "confirming" process until that perfected world which faith seeks is ultimately seen and enjoyed. There may, however, be partial glimpses which are made possible by the faith guided eyes of the understanding. Still, these are never confirmed by science because science only makes tentative "conclusions" on the basis of observation.

The science of matter is not materialism. There are facts which are revealed by God in nature which are the domain of all men -- believer and unbeliever alike. These facts are also the assumed context of special revelation. That is what I am alluding to when I speak of understanding what is "normal" in order to be able to standardise "miracle" as a properly functioning concept of human thought.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

I think the scientific evidence is strongly in favor of young earth creationism. I don't really see the rush to pervert Scripture on the matter either.


----------



## Austin

Josh, are you a geologist? (Neither am I, but the scientists I know & know of are quite sure of the opposite.) For myself, I am always very hesitant to make scientific claims on the basis of a document that was not written to be a scientific text. I see no overwhelmingly compelling reason why we as people who stand on the sufficiency, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture must assert that the 6 days are intended to be literal (especially when so many, even in our circles are unwilling to assert that they are) nor why it is theologically necessary for our system of doctrine that we hold to a view of what precedes Gen 2:4 that must adhere to a literal 6 day view.


----------



## LawrenceU

ChariotsofFire said:


> I think the scientific evidence is strongly in favor of young earth creationism. I don't really see the rush to pervert Scripture on the matter either.


 
My wife's cousin's husband, who is a professional geologist (Who fairly regularly gets to do some really neat bore analysis in a suspended basket hundreds of feet down in the earth.) would agree with you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Austin said:


> Josh, are you a geologist? (Neither am I, but the scientists I know & know of are quite sure of the opposite.) For myself, I am always very hesitant to make scientific claims on the basis of a document that was not written to be a scientific text. I see no overwhelmingly compelling reason why we as people who stand on the sufficiency, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture must assert that the 6 days are intended to be literal (especially when so many, even in our circles are unwilling to assert that they are) nor why it is theologically necessary for our system of doctrine that we hold to a view of what precedes Gen 2:4 that must adhere to a literal 6 day view.


 
Austin,

Are you saying we should accept the scientific conclusions on faith as they are beyond our understanding as "non-scientists"?


----------



## ChariotsofFire

Austin said:


> Josh, are you a geologist? (Neither am I, but the scientists I know & know of are quite sure of the opposite.) For myself, I am always very hesitant to make scientific claims on the basis of a document that was not written to be a scientific text. I see no overwhelmingly compelling reason why we as people who stand on the sufficiency, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture must assert that the 6 days are intended to be literal (especially when so many, even in our circles are unwilling to assert that they are) nor why it is theologically necessary for our system of doctrine that we hold to a view of what precedes Gen 2:4 that must adhere to a literal 6 day view.


 
If we really want to side with a majority, why not side with the majority of Christians since the time of Moses? Why do we desire to side with the scientists of the day more than our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ? 6 day creation is the historical view since the time of Moses to the 18th century, and despite a few dissenting voices gives us a strong argument to believe in a young earth based on God's providence.

As far as the science goes, I side with the minority view (of today), and I find the arguments for a young earth strictly from a scientific point of view quite compelling. Of course I could be affected somewhat by my world view  -- possibly some of the mainstream scientists are as well  The broader scientific community does not really allow for open debate on the matter of a young earth or even intelligent design. So I don't trust the mainstream scientists at all. 

Our theology should be determined by what Scripture says, and in light of Exodus 20:8–11, Mark 10:6 and 13:19, Luke 11:50–51, I'm convicted strongly that anything but 6-day creation is not in line with what the Scripture teaches. And the reason it's such a sticking point with many Christians is that the Scripture is being twisted to say something it doesn't on an important issue -- the creation of the world. Denominations have split over the truth of Scripture concerning women in office, homosexuality, etc. I don't see why creation is any less of an issue. Especially considering the battle we have with the Godless culture -- the culture that believes everything was created by random chance over billions of years. Many Christians don't want to give in to the influence of this culture and compromise. This is important.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

Dr. Joey Pipa gives a defense of 6-day creation here:
SermonAudio.com - A Defense of 6-Day Creation

at the 2000 Origins Conference 
SermonAudio.com - Sermon Series 2000 Origins Conference


----------



## Philip

> Scripture is being twisted to say something it doesn't on an important issue



Which is? If anything, a framework view is more conservative on this issue, being hesitant to claim something that the text may or may not say.

Another possibility is that the days in Genesis are a) non-consecutive b) stylized, like the book of John: ie non-chronological (John is arranged thematically not chronologically).



> Our theology should be determined by what Scripture says, and in light of Exodus 20:8–11, Mark 10:6 and 13:19, Luke 11:50–51, I'm convicted strongly that anything but 6-day creation is not in line with what the Scripture teaches.



Only one of those has anything to do with the six days and even that is dealing with them symbolically. No biblical OEC-er is going to accept your verses as they affirm a) that the six days are theology not history b) that the universe is not the result of random chance, but of God's providence.



> Many Christians don't want to give in to the influence of this culture and compromise.



But here's my point: this debate needs to be one that we have in the Church not with the world. The debate is over how we reconcile general and special revelation on this point and how each is to be interpreted. We must not, though, allow this issue to divert our apologetic endeavors away from the real issue: Christ and Him crucified. OEC is part of the reformed tradition and has been since the 1850s---it's a bit late to be second-guessing B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge just as it is a bit late to be second-guessing neo-Calvinism as a really reformed movement. Like it or not, it's a part of the landscape.


----------



## LawrenceU

I would posit that a great deal of difficulty that exists in trying to teach Christ and Him crucified that we have today stems from the fact that several key scholars of the middle 19th century bent to the pressure of 'proven science' and adopted an Old Earth, non literal view of the first portion of Genesis. It is a linchpin, like it or not. I know that not all who hold to an Old Earth view pervert the Gospel, but it opens wide Pandora's box of subjective interpretation of Scripture. That may sound like a hard line, and perhaps it is; but I see NO compelling reason in Scripture to not hold a literal six / twenty four hour day view of the creation week. There is none. The only 'compelling' reason is in the sciences, and they are not even solid. Hypotheses and theories are constantly tweaked and abandoned as new evidence comes to light in almost every field. There was a time when every intelligent student of history, archaeology, and many students of Scripture admitted that there was never a people known as Hittites. Low and behold a vast culture of Hittites was discovered and many experts learned that crow is edible, though not all that tasty. Some were unwilling to admit that they were wrong and to this day a minority deny that the excavations that were done were the same people as Biblical Hittites, even though it has been confirmed in repeated manners.

Why bring that up? Because the Bible will never be proven wrong. I think that all on this board will agree to that. It then brings us back to the question that must be answered: Where is the compelling internal evidence for the abandonment of a literal 24 hour / six day creation?


----------



## Herald

Lawrence, the problem with your explanation is that it is not scientific or rational in the eyes of modern science. They see you as a myopic bible thumper who, at best, is quaint and, at worst, is dangerous.


----------



## Austin

Good point, Lawrence, though I have to say that I agree with Philip that there's a case to be made that the Framework view is arguably more conservative, as it hesitates to assert something that Scripture doesn't necessitate. 

However, as we go round and round, it really is the case that in all likelihood none of us will have our views changed all that much. What I would like to see us all agree on is that both the 6 Day view and the Framework view are within the pale of Reformed orthodoxy. Surely if the PCA study group could agree to that, we can as well. Generally speaking, when I find myself somewhere in the midst of the consensus of my former professors at RTS Jackson, I feel like I'm within a healthy spectrum.  

Any thoughts? (I'm sure there are!)


----------



## Philip

> Surely if the PCA study group could agree to that



Not to mention the OPC.


----------



## ChristianTrader

P. F. Pugh said:


> Scripture is being twisted to say something it doesn't on an important issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is? If anything, a framework view is more conservative on this issue, being hesitant to claim something that the text may or may not say.
Click to expand...


As a counter, is it really conservative to be hesitant to deny something that is in the text. Now I know you are against gay marriage, but this way of argument would be equivalent to saying, "I don't want to say gay marriage is biblical or not, I am just not sure." And then trying to label such as the more conservative position.



> Another possibility is that the days in Genesis are a) non-consecutive b) stylized, like the book of John: ie non-chronological (John is arranged thematically not chronologically).



The problem is the text of the Bible did not change in the 1800s, so all the same words were there before and after. If this is the case, why did some start to say the meanings of the words are not what we thought they were? 



> Many Christians don't want to give in to the influence of this culture and compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But here's my point: this debate needs to be one that we have in the Church not with the world. The debate is over how we reconcile general and special revelation on this point and how each is to be interpreted. We must not, though, allow this issue to divert our apologetic endeavors away from the real issue: Christ and Him crucified. OEC is part of the reformed tradition and has been since the 1850s---it's a bit late to be second-guessing B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge just as it is a bit late to be second-guessing neo-Calvinism as a really reformed movement. Like it or not, it's a part of the landscape.
Click to expand...

 
Why can't we call some Reformed people from the 1800s compromisers? Just because they compromised over a century ago should not change what we call it.

Also how one reconciles general and special revelation is not some small point. That is the point where we hammer the false theistic systems. There is exactly where Islam etc fails.


----------



## Austin

Well said, but if I'm not mistaken, something like the Framework view has been around since the days of Augustine. The issue, I believe, comes down to one of genre. If Genesis 1:1-2:3 is history, then we end up with one view. If it is poetry (particularly polemical poetry) then we have another. Clearly, based on the interpretation of Gen 2:4ff in subsequent passages of Scripture, that passage is meant by Moses to be history. The Framework view also resolves the quite apparent problem of the lack of parallelism between the "1st" and "2nd" accounts of Creation (1:1-2:3 & 2:4ff). Really, it is not the critiques of our 'cultured despisers' that makes me strongly consider the FW view, but this latter issue of the differences in the 2 accounts of Creation.


----------



## LawrenceU

Herald said:


> Lawrence, the problem with your explanation is that it is not scientific or rational in the eyes of modern science. They see you as a myopic bible thumper who, at best, is quaint and, at worst, is dangerous.



Guilty as charged, I reckon.


----------



## jayce475

LawrenceU said:


> I would posit that a great deal of difficulty that exists in trying to teach Christ and Him crucified that we have today stems from the fact that several key scholars of the middle 19th century bent to the pressure of 'proven science' and adopted an Old Earth, non literal view of the first portion of Genesis. It is a linchpin, like it or not. I know that not all who hold to an Old Earth view pervert the Gospel, but it opens wide Pandora's box of subjective interpretation of Scripture. That may sound like a hard line, and perhaps it is; but I see NO compelling reason in Scripture to not hold a literal six / twenty four hour day view of the creation week. There is none. The only 'compelling' reason is in the sciences, and they are not even solid. Hypotheses and theories are constantly tweaked and abandoned as new evidence comes to light in almost every field. There was a time when every intelligent student of history, archaeology, and many students of Scripture admitted that there was never a people known as Hittites. Low and behold a vast culture of Hittites was discovered and many experts learned that crow is edible, though not all that tasty. Some were unwilling to admit that they were wrong and to this day a minority deny that the excavations that were done were the same people as Biblical Hittites, even though it has been confirmed in repeated manners.
> 
> Why bring that up? Because the Bible will never be proven wrong. I think that all on this board will agree to that. It then brings us back to the question that must be answered: Where is the compelling internal evidence for the abandonment of a literal 24 hour / six day creation?


 


Pardon my puny mind, but I don't get this whole argument that Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is polemical poetry. Genesis, Acts and the Gospels appear to me as historical as any book can possibly be. If I want poetry, it's there, in Song of Songs etc. If no other part of Genesis is poetry, why are we wrenching out this portion and scripture and trying to fit our own misguided science into it? Let God be true and every man a liar.


----------



## he beholds

nasa30 said:


> Bookmeister said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not make the word day poetic but scripture does use the word day in other than 24 hour "days." the framework theory does not say it is NOT 6/24, it says that is not the issue. The days of creation are set up in 2 sets of 3 parallels. Day 1 creation, day 4 filling, day 2 creation, day 5 filling etc. It very well may have been 6 literal 24 hour days, but that is not clear from the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am not mistaken, the word for day used in the creation account is "yom" and the other 2,300 times "yom" is used it not challenged as a 24 hour day. No one is arguing that Jonah was 300,000 years in the belly of the fish or that it took 790,000 years to march around Jericho. in my opinion, the only reason it is only said to not be a "day" in Genesis is because the proponents of evolution have to make it that way to fit their end result.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering why you blame this on evolutionists?
I am very unscientific, which makes it easy for the science guys to get me to question whether Gen 2 is describing a week or a longer period of time, and when this was. However, I do not think that one needs to believe in evolution in order to consider or even believe that the world was created more than 6,000 years ago. I just settle on the 6 days, because it is easier, but when I listen to what other ideas are out there, and even consider them, I still never once consider evolution. 



LawrenceU said:


> I cannot tell you how many people I have met who have little faith, or no faith in Scripture, that where brought up in conservative churches which allowed that the creation account in Genesis could be interpreted to mean something other than what the simple reading of the text leads one to believe. Once we begin to do that to Scripture where do we stop? If God's word says that he created the world in six days and puts the modifier of 'evening and morning' there so that it is even more clear who are we to go and redefine what God has defined. I really do think it is that serious - and that simple.




I totally believe in my heart and know in my head that the Lord is God, He has revealed Himself to us in his perfect, infallible Word, and that Word is the only authority I have as to how to know and love God and how I am known and loved by God. I sometimes doubt things about God, of course, but I always know that He is God and that the Bible is True. Yet, I can see a world where I could be persuaded, with my faith in the Lord a constant, to believe that perhaps God created the world more than 6,000 years ago, or perhaps the Bible doesn't explain the exact act of creation, because it never intended to (and not because it is a deficiency of the Word of the Perfect Lord!). I don't think (but I could be wrong) that this would mean that my faith is little or none.


----------



## Philip

> As a counter, is it really conservative to be hesitant to deny something that is in the text. Now I know you are against gay marriage, but this way of argument would be equivalent to saying, "I don't want to say gay marriage is biblical or not, I am just not sure." And then trying to label such as the more conservative position.



It is clearly the case that our belief that homosexuality is immoral stems from clear Biblical teachings that cannot be interpreted as poetry or norms peculiar to one set of cultural circumstances (indeed, Paul's teaching of the subject was as counter-cultural then as it is now). This has not been debated in the history of the Church until the modern breakdown of morality.

It is not clearly the case that Genesis 1 is not a theological account intended as an apologetic to counter the remnants of Egyptian paganism in Israel. Again, I would point you to the example of the book of John where the events have been clearly rearranged to make a theological point.



> If this is the case, why did some start to say the meanings of the words are not what we thought they were?



Again, this isn't some new theory. Versions of this idea have been around since the Patristic period.



> Also how one reconciles general and special revelation is not some small point. That is the point where we hammer the false theistic systems. There is exactly where Islam etc fails.



Islam rejects general revelation, so such a critique would be irrelevant. In fact, no other theistic religion (ie: one with a transcendent God) that I am aware of has a doctrine of general revelation.



Austin said:


> The Framework view also resolves the quite apparent problem of the lack of parallelism between the "1st" and "2nd" accounts of Creation (1:1-2:3 & 2:4ff). Really, it is not the critiques of our 'cultured despisers' that makes me strongly consider the FW view, but this latter issue of the differences in the 2 accounts of Creation.



Amen. The reasons why I take this view seriously are, I think, Biblical not cultural. It's the apparent discrepancy between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 that gives me pause.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Austin said:


> Well said, but if I'm not mistaken, something like the Framework view has been around since the days of Augustine. The issue, I believe, comes down to one of genre. If Genesis 1:1-2:3 is history, then we end up with one view. If it is poetry (particularly polemical poetry) then we have another. Clearly, based on the interpretation of Gen 2:4ff in subsequent passages of Scripture, that passage is meant by Moses to be history. The Framework view also resolves the quite apparent problem of the lack of parallelism between the "1st" and "2nd" accounts of Creation (1:1-2:3 & 2:4ff). Really, it is not the critiques of our 'cultured despisers' that makes me strongly consider the FW view, but this latter issue of the differences in the 2 accounts of Creation.


 
Actually from what I understand of Augustine's case, it was an issue of also taking an outside position and imposing it on the Bible. He did not exegetically come to the his creation week views. So if FH folks want to claim him, go right ahead 

Also you never addressed the "no new scripture was found but new inconsistencies just all of a sudden appeared" counter, in my above post. The same differences have been in scripture from the beginning. Why now has the skeptical position gained traction?

CT


----------



## Philip

> Also you never addressed the "no new scripture was found but new inconsistencies just all of a sudden appeared" counter, in my above post. The same differences have been in scripture from the beginning. Why now has the skeptical position gained traction?



People notice different things at different times. Luther noticed that Paul defined justification differently than the Church had been defining it for eight hundred years. It was as logical for people to notice these discrepancies more acutely during a time of skepticism as it was for Luther to notice the discrepancy during a time of humanism. Regardless of how the question arose, we have to take it seriously and consider seriously the claims of proponents, even if we eventually reject them.


----------



## Austin

Agreed. We notice different things at different times and in different ways. No one would have questioned Christ's divinity or the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead had not some heretics called it into question. Similarly, when it 'seemed' to most that the sun revolved around the earth, it was easy to take Scripture's poetical descriptions of said observation as being in accord w/ scientific fact. Again, In the time of the Reformation it was radical to assert the view of Justification that Luther et al asserted. But they merely did so at that time b/c there was significant external pressure that caused the Reformers to reassess the majority opinion about this doctrine. 

More often than not, it is external pressures (whether theological, scientific, cultural, or political) that have forced the Church either to amend its assessment of what is the case, or to more specifically define an issue or issues that have not needed significant precision previously. 

It is easy, when there are no data to suggest otherwise, that the earth (indeed, the cosmos) is young. But when the increasing weight of the scientific evidence (including bona fide Christians in the academy) suggests that perhaps our facile reading of Gen 1:1-2:3 has been imprecise, it behooves the Church to be humble enough to say that perhaps the Lord did not mean to say what we think He meant to say in the relevant passages. 

That's all. Remember, it wasn't until the mid-19th century that Christians began to accept the then-novel concept that perhaps species could die off & become extinct. But then both archaeological evidence (of megafauna which no longer exist) and experiential evidence (people saw species go extinct) showed that the theological consensus on this matter was in error. 

It is always valuable in the study of Scripture to be dogmatic on the one hand and humbly teachable on the other. We stand fast till we must admit we were wrong. As Luther so famously said, "Unless you can convince me by Scripture & sound reason... here I stand I cannot do otherwise. So help me God, amen."


----------



## LawrenceU

I agree with much of what you post, Austin. But, the truth is that aside from the fact that there is no internal evidence that compels an Old Earth theory, there is also no scientific data that demands an Old Earth theory. The theories that do are for the most part based upon two ideas that are both false. One is Uniformitarianism. No Christian can believe that. The other is the acceptance of the geologic table. . . which has never been observed, never. It is simply a result of the theories of Smith and Lyell. Theories that are completely circular. How are they circular? Well, strata period is determined by what fossils it contains. Simple enough. So, how are the ages of fossils determined? By the strata in which they are located. Circular. 

Much of the original reason that was brought out of science that demanded an Old Earth has been observed to take less than a lifetime to occur. Hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock layers can be laid down in hours and become established in months. Fossilisation can take place in weeks. The list could go on, but I must be off.


----------



## Marrow Man

It would probably be wise to cease discussions on this thread in honor of the Lord's Day and resume comments on Monday.


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> It is not clearly the case that Genesis 1 is not a theological account intended as an apologetic to counter the remnants of Egyptian paganism in Israel.


 
First, it is not propaganda, and it could only counter pagan notions if it was relating fact. The six day schema would be seen as necessary to countering the mythological understanding as to how things developed, so any statement about the polemical nature of the work would only serve to strengthen the importance of the fact that creation was made in six days. Secondly, it is clear that the six day schema is utilised in a non polemical way in the fourth command of the decalogue. Whatever value the polemical interpretation possesses, it cannot be used in an exclusive way so as to rule out literal applications in other areas. Thirdly, other biblical passages look to the creation account of Genesis one as literal and draw implications from its chronology. E.g., God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness; the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. These statements invest more than polemical value in the narrative; they draw historical and chronological details from the account.


----------



## SRoper

I haven't jumped in before now since I don't have a whole lot to add. I appreciate the mostly civil tone of the discussion. Thank you.

I have to admit that Genesis was a major obstacle to me becoming a Christian. When I did become a Christian, I decided I would ignore the whole Genesis debate for a while as I still could not reconcile the first chapters of Genesis with what I understood science to reveal about the earth. That may seem rather silly and completely unworkable, but I'm glad God rescued me and is continually renewing me. Now, ten years later, I still have great difficulty with reconciling the biblical evidence with the scientific evidence. I think that dealing with the global flood is more difficult than the issue of the nature of the days in chapter one. That is, it seems strange to me to accept findings that the Earth is old and also hold to a global flood. In my estimation, the exegetical arguments for a global flood are much stronger than the arguments for a young earth from Gen. 1, so I don't understand why more of the debate doesn't center around Gen. 6-8.

Perhaps the way I understand the place of scientific evidence is completely wrong. It seems to me there is a place for scientific evidence unless one takes Gordon Clark's highly skeptical view. I like Austin's example of the idea that a species could go extinct (I was toying with using the example of the of the belief that Hebrew was the mother-tongue that all other languages descended from, but this example is much better). I'm not sure what the biblical arguments were at the time, but it seems that one could make the case that the God who saved two of every kind from the Flood would not allow a kind to go extinct after the Flood. It doesn't seem that there is any internal biblical evidence that could be used against the idea that God wouldn't let a kind go extinct. Yet this idea seems to have passed away on scientific grounds. Isn't there a point at which the biblical evidence is too weak and the scientific or historical evidence too strong to overturn a certain interpretation? I'm not suggesting that this should be done lightly, only asking if this tipping point exists.


----------



## Peairtach

Casey said:


> Bookmeister said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "evening and morning" for day 7.
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture doesn't explicitly use the words "evening and morning" for each "day" mentioned in Gen. 2:17, 3:5, 3:8, 4:14, and, well, just about every other time the word "day" occurs in the rest of Scripture (including the Fourth Commandment). Are you going to conclude that those days don't have mornings and evenings? If the text actually said that the "seventh day had no morning or evening" you'd have an argument.
Click to expand...


The reason that there is no evening and morning on the Seventh Day is that God only started resting from the work of creation on that Day and has been resting from it ever since, see Hebrews 4.

I don't see much evidence of the days of Genesis One being meant to be taken metaphorically. 

Regarding the science, scientists would have just as much difficulty puzzling over the age of the wine that Jesus made at Cana as they do with the age of the Earth. Once naturalism is accepted as the governing principle for origins science the Earth has to have taken a long time to develop.

When you examine Day One in Genesis Chapter One, you see that God ingeneously created day and night on Day One. 

If a metaphorical view of the Days is correct, we thus have God creating metaphorical Days (and Nights) on metaphorical Day One, do we?


----------



## Peairtach

It is unusual that the Sun isn't made until the Fourth Day, because if we were going to make day and night, we would think it essential to have the Sun. It's maybe one of the better points that that is made against ordinary 24-hour days.

But God ingeniously makes the First Day and Night on the First Day by creating an independent light source.

Then on the Fourth Day the Sun takes over.

If this is all metaphor or a literary framework of Days it's fairly clumsy for the reason given in the last post. With a literary framework of Six Days why would it be necessary for Moses, or the original author that Moses under inspiration drew this from, to tell us about the creation of day and night on the First Day?

" I'm going to use the Six Days of the working week as a literary framework in which to present God's creation of the World! Just a minute; I'll have to explain first of all how God created day and night so I can have days on which God can create! My First Day won't involve the Sun though - as one would expect in any literary account of the creation of day and night - because I want to leave the creation of the Sun to Day Four." 

If it was a literary account in which the order of creation doesn't matter too much, you would think that the Sun would be the first thing created after the Heavens and the Earth, in order for there to be Days on which God could create. Or you would think that the creation of day and night might be left out completely as being unduly clumsy in a literary work built around a metaphorical week.

If Genesis 1:3-5 is telling us about the creation of day and night, another Q for the OECs is what kind of day and night is it telling us about the creation of? A metaphorical day and night that lasts for millions or billions of years, or a normal day and night - albeit without the Sun?


----------



## Reformed Baptist

> The second reason is of perhaps greater importance. If the earth is old and Christians insist it is young, we risk becoming a tragic obstacle to faith for those both inside and outside the church. Non-Christians who logically understand geology conclude that the path to Christ requires belief in an intentionally deceptive god and choose to place their faith elsewhere. Covenant children who are raised with the impression that a young earth is integral to Christianity have their faith needlessly undermined when they are later confronted with the overwhelming evidence of the earth's antiquity, and many leave the faith. It is our prayer that no Christian would be such an obstacle!



Glad to see the topic gets some attention. 

I find this statement from the article rather surprising. Are they really serious about basing their pragmatism on soteriological issues? If so, this statement seems to smack of a real Arminian/Humanistic way of thinking of such things. It's as if to say, "Hey, let's not insist on a young earth because some folks might not get saved!" Do you really think a YEC is going to prevent God's elect? 

Secondly, they argue from a moral standpoint: If the earth is young, and looks old, then it makes God out to be deceptive. Really? Was God keeping a nursery for Eve until Adam could take her as wife? Or did God present to Adam a mature woman when she was only seconds old? Of course, the article antipates this:



> Young-earth advocates counter that Creation had to have the appearance of age, without deception, because Adam, mature forests, and even flowing rivers would all of necessity have the appearance of age. This confuses maturity with history. A miraculously created tree might well appear mature, but apparent age arguments suggest that if Adam cut down several of these trees, he may have found 50 growth rings with matching patterns of variable growth and burn marks at rings 21 and 43. These data represent not just maturity or age but history--a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth's layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.



So are these folks arguing that the first trees didn't have rings? Really...this reasoning comes accross to me as weak and even babyish. Personally, I don't really give a hoo-ha what these men think about which view impugns the character of God. WHat I care about is "Thus saith the Lord." And without having read the AIG response, I know they take their stand there. I have listened to men say "The Scripture isn't clear..." Well, I have read the Scripture. It is clear. And if its not clear to you, it is to me. And it was abundantly clear the Westminster Divines. Not only do these men seek to obscure the clear statements of Scripture, but also their own Confession! Well, what did the Divines mean by "..a space of six days.." ? 

My suggestion is we stop pandering to every whim of science. Let's start with the Word of God. Let's make that our presupposition. God is true, every man a liar. I cannot lab-test the subject of origins because I CANNOT directly observe it. I wasn't there. God was. I trust Him.


----------



## Grimmson

Reformed Baptist said:


> These data represent not just maturity or age but history--a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth's layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are these folks arguing that the first trees didn't have rings?
Click to expand...


I do not have time to discuss this because am going to a bible study am leading in a hour, but the issue of tree rings is extremely important considering the worldwide flood. The trees that God created during creation would have been destroyed during the flood. All trees coming up after the flood would have the characteristic of tree rings today if they started by the normal natural process of tree development. Therefore the issue of trees showing more then 6000 to 9,000 years worth of rings is a solid legitimate issue against those New Earthers who try to force a strict 6000 year date. This of course bypasses the issue if God originally created trees without rings, because there no way to really prove the issue one way or the other from scripture and the reality is that all the trees we have today would have started to grow after the great flood and thus have rings indicating their true age.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

The OEC's will have to contend with all the geological evidence which prove that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old. For example, the accumulated dust on the moon, the chemical make-up of the earth's oceans, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, etc.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Grimmson said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These data represent not just maturity or age but history--a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth's layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are these folks arguing that the first trees didn't have rings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not have time to discuss this because am going to a bible study am leading in a hour, but the issue of tree rings is extremely important considering the worldwide flood. The trees that God created during creation would have been destroyed during the flood. All trees coming up after the flood would have the characteristic of tree rings today if they started by the normal natural process of tree development. Therefore the issue of trees showing more then 6000 to 9,000 years worth of rings is a solid legitimate issue against those New Earthers who try to force a strict 6000 year date. This of course bypasses the issue if God originally created trees without rings, because there no way to really prove the issue one way or the other from scripture and the reality is that all the trees we have today would have started to grow after the great flood and thus have rings indicating their true age.
Click to expand...


I don't care what trees show, primarily. I care what God says. I will evaluate the data in light of the Scripture, not the Scripture in light of the data.

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------




sastark said:


> See the links here: The Ruling Elder: Modern Reformation's Piece on Non-6 Day Creation Answered


 
Something should be said of AiG's rebuttal. Here are some important points I see:

"One of the most interesting aspects of the eight geologists’ case is what is omitted. The PCA is a confessional church with a high view of biblical inerrancy and authority. Yet no arguments are made from the Bible or the Westminster Confession of Faith. Instead, these geologists believe that science interprets Scripture. "

They then list 8 points they noticed in the article and made this comment "The first four points set the stage for the fifth and sixth points, which are the heart of their article." This is exactly true. 

The final thing I took away from AiG's reubuttal: *"There is nothing new within this article—any well-read creationist will recognize the same tired arguments that have been answered many times."*

And they are exactly right on that. ONe wonders about these things. lol


----------



## he beholds

Richard Tallach said:


> *Regarding the science, scientists would have just as much difficulty puzzling over the age of the wine that Jesus made at Cana as they do with the age of the Earth.*


 
That is a great reminder!


----------



## Peairtach

Willem van Oranje said:


> The OEC's will have to contend with all the geological evidence which prove that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old. For example, the accumulated dust on the moon, the chemical make-up of the earth's oceans, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, etc.



Any evidence that does not fit the prevailing paradigm gets swept under the carpet, being unthinkable and uncontemplateable.

The YECs on the other hand have to deal with some evidence that (seems to point) points to an old Earth and/or Universe.


----------



## Grimmson

Reformed Baptist said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These data represent not just maturity or age but history--a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth's layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are these folks arguing that the first trees didn't have rings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not have time to discuss this because am going to a bible study am leading in a hour, but the issue of tree rings is extremely important considering the worldwide flood. The trees that God created during creation would have been destroyed during the flood. All trees coming up after the flood would have the characteristic of tree rings today if they started by the normal natural process of tree development. Therefore the issue of trees showing more then 6000 to 9,000 years worth of rings is a solid legitimate issue against those New Earthers who try to force a strict 6000 year date. This of course bypasses the issue if God originally created trees without rings, because there no way to really prove the issue one way or the other from scripture and the reality is that all the trees we have today would have started to grow after the great flood and thus have rings indicating their true age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care what trees show, primarily. I care what God says. I will evaluate the data in light of the Scripture, not the Scripture in light of the data.
Click to expand...



There are two sources of truth one must consider. The first being scripture under the category of special revelation. The second source is from general revelation, such as in the case of the sciences; including physics, chemistry, and biology. This is not to mean however that science itself is infallible, because man is not infallible in the process of interpreting the data. Also man is not infallible when it comes interpreting the word of God. God is a god of truth; therefore we should see his truth in nature and in scripture. 
I agree with the following quote from the article:


> Because God loves truth, any disagreement over truth, especially that He revealed, is important. But it is equally clear that the reason for disagreement among Christians is their imperfect understanding, due either to natural limits, faulty intellectual consistency (including assumptions about the past), or indwelling sin.


However the assumption given by the AIG article when going to the infallible scripture is that it will be interpreted properly; that there is no missing knowledge to interpret the text properly because of current limits, natural or otherwise.

The reason why I mentioned the issue of tree rings after the flood methodically was so one could not make the claim as seen in the answers in genesis article of confusing maturity with history or age. It also assumes the flood presuppositionly as a real world wide flood event, which I do affirm. 

A statement like “ I don’t care what trees show” is exactly why it is hard to evangelize to people of a scientific mind. It communicates that are unwilling to engage in truth that we are suppose to represent as Christians. I do not know if it is true, but the story goes near Glen Rose Texas when the dinosaur and human footprints were unearthed and analyzed a evolutionist said that he sees no contradiction here for evolution. Of course that would upset the creationists to scream prejudice and to look at the data. Well likewise if were unwilling to look at dendrochronology data such scientist would scream the same thing towards us and we then will have egg on our face and it could have long term spiritual consequences to not only who we are witnessing to, but also to our children down the road. I should know, because I dealt with the pieces of children who were taught anti-evolution material and saw what they were seeing in college overwhelming and then I need come along and show the issues and real problems of both sides; otherwise there gone in the faith. People need concrete facts and for it to be given in a honest way, not rhetoric. Honestly the methods you use will develop the level of the believers. If blind sighted superficial arguments are used then you develop surface level, non crucially minded, believers. Your content and means does matter and praise God that when people come to faith it is not because of us, but instead despite of us and our efforts. That does not mean that we neglect the teaching of facts; and not just in biology or physics, but also in language, history, and textual criticism. 

We need to look at the data not just in light of scripture, but also with respect to general revelation, for the two should be in harmony and support each other. And if we see problems with the two, we shouldn’t blow it off, but instead struggle with it till the day we have the answers we seek or till we die or Jesus returns; which ever comes first in the providence of God. People respect more that we don’t necessarily have the answer if were honest about it, instead of blowing smoke in their direction. If they think ere trying to deceive them or that were just dumb concerning the facts of the history and science of a particular subject then we lose our ground for communicating the history of the death and burial of Jesus Christ; which we should all try to be prepared for.


----------



## jayce475

Grimmson said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These data represent not just maturity or age but history--a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth's layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are these folks arguing that the first trees didn't have rings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not have time to discuss this because am going to a bible study am leading in a hour, but the issue of tree rings is extremely important considering the worldwide flood. The trees that God created during creation would have been destroyed during the flood. All trees coming up after the flood would have the characteristic of tree rings today if they started by the normal natural process of tree development. Therefore the issue of trees showing more then 6000 to 9,000 years worth of rings is a solid legitimate issue against those New Earthers who try to force a strict 6000 year date. This of course bypasses the issue if God originally created trees without rings, because there no way to really prove the issue one way or the other from scripture and the reality is that all the trees we have today would have started to grow after the great flood and thus have rings indicating their true age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care what trees show, primarily. I care what God says. I will evaluate the data in light of the Scripture, not the Scripture in light of the data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are two sources of truth one must consider. The first being scripture under the category of special revelation. The second source is from general revelation, such as in the case of the sciences; including physics, chemistry, and biology. This is not to mean however that science itself is infallible, because man is not infallible in the process of interpreting the data. Also man is not infallible when it comes interpreting the word of God. God is a god of truth; therefore we should see his truth in nature and in scripture.
> I agree with the following quote from the article:
> 
> 
> 
> Because God loves truth, any disagreement over truth, especially that He revealed, is important. But it is equally clear that the reason for disagreement among Christians is their imperfect understanding, due either to natural limits, faulty intellectual consistency (including assumptions about the past), or indwelling sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However the assumption given by the AIG article when going to the infallible scripture is that it will be interpreted properly; that there is no missing knowledge to interpret the text properly because of current limits, natural or otherwise.
> 
> The reason why I mentioned the issue of tree rings after the flood methodically was so one could not make the claim as seen in the answers in genesis article of confusing maturity with history or age. It also assumes the flood presuppositionly as a real world wide flood event, which I do affirm.
> 
> A statement like “ I don’t care what trees show” is exactly why it is hard to evangelize to people of a scientific mind. It communicates that are unwilling to engage in truth that we are suppose to represent as Christians. I do not know if it is true, but the story goes near Glen Rose Texas when the dinosaur and human footprints were unearthed and analyzed a evolutionist said that he sees no contradiction here for evolution. Of course that would upset the creationists to scream prejudice and to look at the data. Well likewise if were unwilling to look at dendrochronology data such scientist would scream the same thing towards us and we then will have egg on our face and it could have long term spiritual consequences to not only who we are witnessing to, but also to our children down the road. I should know, because I dealt with the pieces of children who were taught anti-evolution material and saw what they were seeing in college overwhelming and then I need come along and show the issues and real problems of both sides; otherwise there gone in the faith. People need concrete facts and for it to be given in a honest way, not rhetoric. Honestly the methods you use will develop the level of the believers. If blind sighted superficial arguments are used then you develop surface level, non crucially minded, believers. Your content and means does matter and praise God that when people come to faith it is not because of us, but instead despite of us and our efforts. That does not mean that we neglect the teaching of facts; and not just in biology or physics, but also in language, history, and textual criticism.
> 
> We need to look at the data not just in light of scripture, but also with respect to general revelation, for the two should be in harmony and support each other. And if we see problems with the two, we shouldn’t blow it off, but instead struggle with it till the day we have the answers we seek or till we die or Jesus returns; which ever comes first in the providence of God. People respect more that we don’t necessarily have the answer if were honest about it, instead of blowing smoke in their direction. If they think ere trying to deceive them or that were just dumb concerning the facts of the history and science of a particular subject then we lose our ground for communicating the history of the death and burial of Jesus Christ; which we should all try to be prepared for.
Click to expand...

 
As you have said so yourself in the other thread, you do not consider the bible to be inerrant in the matters of science. Your rhetoric on the interaction between science and God's Word is therefore unreasonable due to this presupposition towards the Holy Scriptures. Since you do not claim to have a bible that is inerrant on matters of science, it is not expected that you would end up having the same conclusions as those of us who do hold that the bible is indeed inerrant on all matters of science. "People of a scientific mind" is a euphemism for those with minds as described by Romans 1. They also go by the names "intelligent people", "philosophical people", "modern people". Oh, and "unbelieving people".


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grimmson said:


> There are two sources of truth one must consider. The first being scripture under the category of special revelation. The second source is from general revelation, such as in the case of the sciences; including physics, chemistry, and biology. This is not to mean however that science itself is infallible, because man is not infallible in the process of interpreting the data. Also man is not infallible when it comes interpreting the word of God. God is a god of truth; therefore we should see his truth in nature and in scripture.
> I agree with the following quote from the article:
> 
> 
> 
> Because God loves truth, any disagreement over truth, especially that He revealed, is important. But it is equally clear that the reason for disagreement among Christians is their imperfect understanding, due either to natural limits, faulty intellectual consistency (including assumptions about the past), or indwelling sin.
> 
> 
> 
> However the assumption given by the AIG article when going to the infallible scripture is that it will be interpreted properly; that there is no missing knowledge to interpret the text properly because of current limits, natural or otherwise.
> 
> The reason why I mentioned the issue of tree rings after the flood methodically was so one could not make the claim as seen in the answers in genesis article of confusing maturity with history or age. It also assumes the flood presuppositionly as a real world wide flood event, which I do affirm.
> 
> A statement like “ I don’t care what trees show” is exactly why it is hard to evangelize to people of a scientific mind. It communicates that are unwilling to engage in truth that we are suppose to represent as Christians. I do not know if it is true, but the story goes near Glen Rose Texas when the dinosaur and human footprints were unearthed and analyzed a evolutionist said that he sees no contradiction here for evolution. Of course that would upset the creationists to scream prejudice and to look at the data. Well likewise if were unwilling to look at dendrochronology data such scientist would scream the same thing towards us and we then will have egg on our face and it could have long term spiritual consequences to not only who we are witnessing to, but also to our children down the road. I should know, because I dealt with the pieces of children who were taught anti-evolution material and saw what they were seeing in college overwhelming and then I need come along and show the issues and real problems of both sides; otherwise there gone in the faith. People need concrete facts and for it to be given in a honest way, not rhetoric. Honestly the methods you use will develop the level of the believers. If blind sighted superficial arguments are used then you develop surface level, non crucially minded, believers. Your content and means does matter and praise God that when people come to faith it is not because of us, but instead despite of us and our efforts. That does not mean that we neglect the teaching of facts; and not just in biology or physics, but also in language, history, and textual criticism.
> 
> We need to look at the data not just in light of scripture, but also with respect to general revelation, for the two should be in harmony and support each other. And if we see problems with the two, we shouldn’t blow it off, but instead struggle with it till the day we have the answers we seek or till we die or Jesus returns; which ever comes first in the providence of God. People respect more that we don’t necessarily have the answer if were honest about it, instead of blowing smoke in their direction. If they think ere trying to deceive them or that were just dumb concerning the facts of the history and science of a particular subject then we lose our ground for communicating the history of the death and burial of Jesus Christ; which we should all try to be prepared for.
Click to expand...

 
David,

By way of introduction, I have two Engineering degrees and one might say I have a "scientific mind". I don't believe in having an uneducated credulity about such things.

We have to be clear that it is not merely the "scientific establishment" that owns the data and sets the playing field with respect to general revelation.

Consider this data: all men are created in the image of God and their consciences bear witness to Him. The heavens declare the glory of God. (Romans 1:18ff)

Also consider this data: Death came into the world through one man. (Romans 5:12)

Physical phenomena, as we witness them today with our instrumentation, allows us to use that information predictably. I'm using a computer because of the predictability of that phenomena.

I think science oversteps its bounds when it tries to extrapolate from the current phenomena, attach a hypothesis of uniformity for all ages, and then tries to draw a straight line backward to a date. In fact, many of the dates are chosen to allow for unguided, random processes to create the phenomena.

It's sort of hard to "choose in the middle". Let's say we just stick with tree rings and allow that data to push us back to a couple of million years old. That's not going to satisfy the "scientific mind" who insists that "modern science" tells us that a billion years had to pass in order to allow a big explosion to slowly form into stars and then planets and then life and then us.

It is entirely possible to draw a "line" from current phenomena to a Young Earth if one does not simply assume uniformity of the decay process or other processes. Some "scientific minds" may not find that palatable but that says nothing about how useful and reliable "current data" is to usability in the physical world and what it can tell us about the world as it is now. After all, the only thing it disrupts are attempts to draw lines backwards _where we have no measurements to compare to_. It disrupts theories and not evidence. 

The data is being interpreted a certain way and scientific minds need to be made aware of their presuppositions rather than simply allowing them to assume that their presuppositions are what general revelation is all about. In other words, I believe in general revelation but that's different than saying I have to buy the metaphysical underpinnings of everything that calls itself a "science". That's where you educate a kid that's prepared to see through the blind confidence that most people have walking through any area of life. The irony is that the average university has several sciences within it whose presuppositions completely contradict one another and all are "science".


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think science oversteps its bounds when it tries to extrapolate from the current phenomena, attach a hypothesis of uniformity for all ages, and then tries to draw a straight line backward to a date.


 
I can't imagine human observation functioning in any other way. It seems to me that this process is setting out the obvious limitations which are placed on human observation when it is not enlightened by special revelation. It certainly has its temporal uses, but it can never serve to provide an ultimate explanation of our world. Human observation begs us to look to the Creator to teach and guide us. The problem with many modern scientists is that they do not regard their field of expertise as one of beggary.


----------



## Austin

All said, one pf the prime attractions of the Framework view is that it leaves open a YEC position, while being able to be agnostic about the actual timeline of things prior to Gen 2:4.


----------

