# Young Earth vs Old Earth



## GoodTreeMinistries.com (Feb 14, 2014)

Was wondering how people that hold a old earth view get that view using the Bible. Would not a natural reading of Genesis bring a person to a young Earth view? If God created the Earth in 6 days, then you count back how many days through genealogies to Adam there are, does not this show the Earth is young?


----------



## Eved (Feb 14, 2014)

That's my conclusion. I don't see biblical support for an old earth.


----------



## SolaSaint (Feb 15, 2014)

I agree, the old earth theory uses science and not the bible to make their point.


----------



## thbslawson (Feb 15, 2014)

I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.

Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 15, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.
> 
> Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?



What is the evidence from the Scriptures themselves that the six days are to be understood metaphorically?

The sun is created on the fourth day? Anything else?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 15, 2014)

I don't see in the Bible that atoms can be split or that they even exist. Cells must not divide. There's not a word about it in scripture. What I do see is that God created all things and that all of his creation brings glory to Him. As one of those who were created with a commission to name the critters and gain dominion over the earth I see a great encouragement to observe, learn, and marvel at what has been wrought by my Father's hand.


----------



## GoodTreeMinistries.com (Feb 15, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.
> 
> Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?



What verses do you use to prove your point?


----------



## Tyrese (Feb 15, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.
> 
> Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?



Well we know your not using the bible. If your not "caving to science", what are you doing?


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 15, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> What is the evidence from the Scriptures themselves that the six days are to be understood metaphorically?


I second that. To me the Genesis account of creation is crystal clear! Jesus too says in Mark 10 V 6 that man was from the beginning of creation! So how long has man been on the earth I ask old earthers? Millions of years? Its contradictory to what the Bible, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit teaches us.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 15, 2014)

I choose Middle-Earth.


----------



## GoodTreeMinistries.com (Feb 15, 2014)

To me old Earth view would disprove the Bible. Genesis is not like Revelation where we can disagree. It seems to plainly state 6 days.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 15, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?



Because no one ever thought of things like the Gap Theory or the Day-Age Theory or the Literary Framework Theory prior to science deciding that the Earth was old. The truth is that if science had never decided that the Earth was billions of years old, no one would read Genesis the way that OE's do, therefore it is a conclusion brought about by a presupposition.


----------



## Eved (Feb 15, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I choose Middle-Earth.



I see what you did there


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 15, 2014)

It is simply not the case that modern science alone has suggested a length for the duration of the creation days that may be other than 24 hours each. A variety of rather significant pre-Enlightenment ecclesiastical figures have variously speculated with respect to the question of the length of the creation days.

While I think that ordinary days is arguable on several grounds, we must not misrepresent the history here and the specfic question of the duration of the days has been disputed among men within the same confessional tradition. Bob Letham's article showing such diversity is helpful (http://www.meetthepuritans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Letham-Creation.pdf) as is the report of the OPC: http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 15, 2014)

Dr. Strange,

I agree with the rest of your post, but respectfully, I don't think the conclusion that such diversity is helpful is correct. Teaching the sheep that the Church is confused as to what Scripture teaches regarding the six days of creation will only minister confusion. They will rightly wonder how they can then trust anything in Scripture if "For in six days God created heaven and earth" (Exodus 20:11) cannot be taken to be an accurate statement on its face. This will only lead to confusion and doubt, and it has done so. I am grateful that my denomination - while respecting brethren who disagree - requires all Church officers to subscribe to the teaching of the Westminster Standards that God created all things "within the space of six days" (LC 15). Respectfully, it is not the case that other views are within the limits of our doctrinal standards. The six-day creation view is explicitly endorsed by the Westminster Confession and both Catechisms which accompany it.

Edited to add: While I'll leave this post up for the points it makes in general, please see below where I realized (HT: Hamalas) Dr. Strange did not actually say such diversity is helpful, but only that an article demonstrating the existence of such diversity is a helpful article.


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 15, 2014)

To be clear: Dr. Strange did not say that such diversity is helpful but rather that Letham's demonstration that such diversity has existed (at least in some fashion) is helpful.

In regards to the OP there are a couple of challenges that this question raises. First, you have asked specifically about why people might hold to an old earth. This question, while often related, is not necessarily tied to one's views on creation itself. In other words, someone could be an ardent creationist and could even hold to a literal six days and still hold to an old earth. So it is important not to impute views or motives to people just because they believe in an old earth. Second, the terms old earth and young earth are not here defined and are thus, somewhat unhelpful. Does old earth mean 100,000 years or 4,000,000,000? Third, amongst those who hold to an old earth view there are distinct positions or "camps" within the old earth perspective. Each of these camps has a slightly different view and gets there in different ways. Thus, there isn't necessarily just a list of Scriptures that are standard in discussing this issue. The day-age theory, the "gap" theory, the analogical view, and the framework view all have their own distinctives and their own take on Scripture. 

If I read your OP aright you want to understand how and why people could believe in an old earth. To get a good feel for these different camps and to answer that question I would recommend reading either the OPC or PCA papers on the subject (which Dr. Strange linked to above). 

Just to lay my cards on the table: I am a young (i.e. 10,000-100,000 year) earth creationist who believes that God created the universe in six literal days. I'm just trying to explain why the question you asked might be more complicated than it seems.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 15, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> To be clear: Dr. Strange did not say that such diversity is helpful but rather that Letham's demonstration that such diversity has existed (at least in some fashion) is helpful.



Oops. You're right. I completely misread the grammar of the statement. He meant the article is helpful, not the diversity _per se_. My apologies, Dr. Strange.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 15, 2014)

Eved said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > I choose Middle-Earth.
> ...



Me neither.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 15, 2014)

Austin:

Thanks for catching what I said. I wish for as much unity as possible. 

It simply is the case that on several issues--length of days, psalm-singing, etc.--there has come to be within confessional Presbyterianism (though perhaps not in some communions, like yours, and others reflected here) some allowed diversity, construed either as being within confessional bounds or as a permitted scruple (or exception, as the PCA terms it) to the Standards. 

This, in partial response to another post, is why there is not simply one denomination of confessional Presbyterians. Desirable but not at any cost, as I think you yourself said. And I think that it was Wayne Sparkman who posted Bob Godfrey's "Reformed Dream," with which I've always had considerable sympathy and thought a good step toward greater unity. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 15, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> Just to lay my cards on the table: I am a young (i.e. 10,000-100,000 year) earth creationist



Wait, that's not young, that's old earth. Or how do we determine what is old and young, and how old is old? 

I think we all agree the young earth view must be the historical young earth view of 4,004 BC or pretty much there abouts. 


My view is 4,004 BC. If I am wrong, with generation gaps in genealogies if they are there (I don't think they are) then I'd say it could go as far back as 10,000BC or so. But I don't hold that view. I believe there are not gaps in the genealogies because of the very specific genealogies, thus right around 4,004BC.


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 15, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > Just to lay my cards on the table: I am a young (i.e. 10,000-100,000 year) earth creationist
> ...



Thanks for proving my point Elder Barnes.  Considering that when most people refer to an old earth they are talking in terms of millions, or more often billions, of years 100,000 years would still be quite young. However, just to clarify, if you pressed me on my view I believe the earth is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old. For me the 100,000 (which is sort of a number that I just pulled out of thin air) is what I might allow for the possible genealogical "gaps" if they do in fact exist. 

So 10,000 is my personal view, while 100,000 is the absolute outer limits of which I could possibly be convinced. 

I hope that's clear as mud.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 15, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> It simply is the case that on several issues--length of days, psalm-singing, etc.--there has come to be within confessional Presbyterianism (though perhaps not in some communions, like yours, and others reflected here) some allowed diversity, construed either as being within confessional bounds or as a permitted scruple (or exception, as the PCA terms it) to the Standards.



I understand what you are saying, but issues like EP, millennial views, etc. require a great deal more hermeneutical understanding and care than six-day creation. Differences in interpretation on these matters are easy enough to appreciate. Differences on whether God created in six days border more on rejection of Scriptural teaching. My church recites the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:1-17 every Lord's Day in the morning service. I can't imagine being an advocate for OEC, and week after week after week reciting, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it," without facing an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance. How does one recite that verse with a straight face every Lord's Day and still honestly maintain that God did not create in six days?

For a confused layman to believe in OEC is one thing, but for a minister it is another. We need instructors that are competent in the basics of exegesis. A man who is so learned that he holds a convoluted interpretation of Scriptural teaching on creation may be very learned indeed, but he is up in the clouds where he is of little use to those of us on the ground.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 15, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> It is simply not the case that modern science alone has suggested a length for the duration of the creation days that may be other than 24 hours each. A variety of rather significant pre-Enlightenment ecclesiastical figures have variously speculated with respect to the question of the length of the creation days.
> 
> While I think that ordinary days is arguable on several grounds, we must not misrepresent the history here and the specfic question of the duration of the days has been disputed among men within the same confessional tradition. Bob Letham's article showing such diversity is helpful (http://www.meetthepuritans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Letham-Creation.pdf) as is the report of the OPC: http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf.
> 
> ...



Letham's article was a point of discussion on the PB.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/lethams-space-six-days-66140/


----------



## Tyrese (Feb 15, 2014)

au5t1n said:


> Alan D. Strange said:
> 
> 
> > It simply is the case that on several issues--length of days, psalm-singing, etc.--there has come to be within confessional Presbyterianism (though perhaps not in some communions, like yours, and others reflected here) some allowed diversity, construed either as being within confessional bounds or as a permitted scruple (or exception, as the PCA terms it) to the Standards.
> ...



Amen!


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 15, 2014)

It seems that two separate questions are being discussed on this thread.

The first question is the one raised by the OP: "how people that hold a old earth view get that view using the Bible?"

The second question which has since emerged is: "Is it biblical (or even) acceptable to hold to such a view?"

Both are worthwhile questions but it seems to me that the focus on the second takes away from an understanding on the first. Perhaps the author of the thread could clarify if he wants us to address both questions or only one.


----------



## GoodTreeMinistries.com (Feb 15, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> It seems that two separate questions are being discussed on this thread.
> 
> The first question is the one raised by the OP: "how people that hold a old earth view get that view using the Bible?"t
> 
> ...


I am most interest in Bible verses that prove the point. Just trying to understand how when using the Bible only how a person can hold to a Old a Earth view?


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 15, 2014)

GoodTreeMinistries.com said:


> Just trying to understand how when using the Bible only how a person can hold to a Old a Earth view?


If by "using the Bible only" you mean that "the Bible teaches the earth is old," I don't think you will find someone who holds to that. While there is admittedly a great diversity of views for those who hold to an old earth view, perhaps one commonality among most if not all of them is that the Bible does not teach whether the earth is old or not. This is the point that will be Scripturally argued. Of course, since it is a universal negative in form, the argument tends to take the form of (1) rebutting arguments used to show the earth is young and (2) showing that the words of Scripture themselves allow for an old earth view (I include the Framework view in this category since it is arguing from Scripture that the narrative does not speak to this issue).

Then, once it is claimed that the Bible does not teach a particular view of the earth's age and so allows for other ages, the person of this persuasion will point to science to show that the earth is old. Hence, the position is not biblical but scientific (though I suppose there are some who appeal to passages that state things like God laid the foundations of old, and then argue that a few thousand years isn't old enough to be consistent with those passages; it will be interesting to see what those you have asked for verses will come up with.).

There is a little more nuance here though. The old earth view will argue that (1) we can trust scientific findings because God has made us to explore the Creation and has given us functioning senses and reasoning ability, (2) because science is so reliable, if it has been proven to be true, then our interpretation of Scripture must be in error, and we will need to correct our understanding of Scripture, and (3) we cannot pit science, reason, or the senses against Scripture because we use them/need them in interpreting Scripture anyway. Sometimes, these points are made the plank of arguing for an old earth view rather than additional considerations.

The first point is what some old earthers believe is being compromised by those who hold to a young earth view: that science isn't evil, and that we can figure out and scientifically prove stuff about Creation.

The second point can take various forms, sometimes sounding harsher ("We should re-interpret Scripture by science") and sometimes sounding more friendly ("Our understanding of Scripture must be in error, let's try to understand it better"). Others on the second point will simply say that if the Scriptures could be interpreted in another manner more consonant with science that has been proven true, then we should look for one of those other interpretations as the correct one. Others will say that if Scripture cannot be interpreted in another way, then science must be incorrect (that it must not be "true science").

On the third point, the general idea is that if we use science in understanding Scripture to begin with, then we might as well use it in this issue too, since it has been proven true scientifically and "all truth is God's truth."

At any rate, it seems to me these three points turn the question into a hermeneutical one of how and when science may be used to interpret Scripture. This might explain how they arrive at and the motivation behind their views that the Scriptures do not teach about the earth's age, but I guess it isn't the same as their "biblical argument" you were looking for: that Scripture does not take a stance on this matter. I suppose though that the interpretive questions do answer why the "natural reading" of Genesis is believed to be incorrect by some who hold to an old earth view.


Edit: Googling Sailhamer turned up these: http://creation.com/unbinding-the-rules
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land
http://5solas.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/genesis_unbound_critique.pdf
http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2011...onism-of-sailhamer-in-genesis-unbound-part-1/


----------



## thbslawson (Feb 15, 2014)

I would refer you to this article on the subject.

Science, the Bible, and the Promised Land | Desiring God


----------



## GoodTreeMinistries.com (Feb 15, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> I would refer you to this article on the subject.
> 
> Science, the Bible, and the Promised Land | Desiring God



Thanks for the article. This was a good read. Will need to think on this one.


----------



## GoodTreeMinistries.com (Feb 15, 2014)

Thanks Afterthought, your information was helpful.


----------



## Andres (Feb 15, 2014)

I'm down with YEC myself, but there's also this book that others may find helpful - The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation.


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 15, 2014)

GoodTreeMinistries.com said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > I would refer you to this article on the subject.
> ...



This just sounds like a modified gap-theory. This review might help to provide some balance: Unbinding the Rules - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 15, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> Science, the Bible, and the Promised Land | Desiring God



I used to see articles like that posted on a forum site which I left because of the blatant promotion and acceptance of Godless theories and teachings.


----------



## thbslawson (Feb 15, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > Science, the Bible, and the Promised Land | Desiring God
> ...



Have you read the article? It's a Biblical argument. I'd challenge you tell me which "Godless theories and teachings" are being promoted.


----------



## thbslawson (Feb 16, 2014)

Tyrese said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.
> ...



Very unkind brother.


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 16, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> I'd challenge you tell me which "Godless theories and teachings" are being promoted.


Simple, the old earth one!


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 16, 2014)

I am deeply saddened that the greatly uncharitable argumentum ad hominem in this thread is permitted to stand.


----------



## Edward (Feb 16, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> I am deeply saddened that the greatly uncharitable argumentum ad hominem in this thread is permitted to stand.


All stereotypes have some basis in fact.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 16, 2014)

I apologize if I have contributed to making this thread a difficult place for those who are inclined toward OEC to give their reasons or indicate their difficulties. My zeal on this matter is mainly for ministers. I want brothers and sisters who are wrestling with this matter to be able to express their thoughts here without fear of being jumped on by five zealous YECs. I apologize if I have been part of that. My own main point here was that ordained men should be competent in the basics of exegesis, and an old earth view indicates he is not ready. We confess six day creation, and it is not an obscure view like millennial views or lapsarian views.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 16, 2014)

I think the best thing going for OEC is that the sun was made on Day Four, and ordinarily you need the sun for day and night.

But we have God creating light and day and night on Day One, without using the sun. That is, we have the purported structural metaphor of OEC, the day and night, being created within the overall metaphor of the Six Days on Day One.

The creation of the first day on Day One seems to be coherent from a 24/6 position as opposed to an OEC position In my humble opinion.

God created day and night on Day One. What kind of day and night was that from an OEC position? Was it a metaphor that He created? Was it a very long period of darkness followed by a very long period of light?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 16, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> I am deeply saddened that the greatly uncharitable argumentum ad hominem in this thread is permitted to stand.


Deleted my part in that. Are there others? To misquote Goldwater, extremism in the defense of scriptural inerrancy is no vice. The OP asked for a biblical defense of OEC, and what has instead been proffered is a convoluted attempt to fit the square peg of scripture into the round hole of so-called science. Whenever a YEC'er points that out he is portrayed as a rabid Luddite with a pitchfork and a torch bent on burning the peaceable intellectuals at the stake. I'm not sure that disagreement with OEC equates with that, or that scoffing and scorn against YEC is any less offensive. 

I apologize for my own lack of charity.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 16, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> I think the best thing going for OEC is that the sun was made on Day Four, and ordinarily you need the sun for day and night.
> 
> But we have God creating light and day and night on Day One, without using the sun. That is, we have the purported structural metaphor of OEC, the day and night, being created within the overall metaphor of the Six Days on Day One.
> 
> ...



Augustine took the separation of the light from the darkness as being the separation of the angles which if he was correct would explain the long period of time that the ol earth was around before the sun moon and stars were created. This goes along very nicely that the "serpent of old" was around a lot longer than most think. Also I think that the "days of creation" may simply be saying the The Lord took 6 days to create and that the Lord created all that was created on a day which may have fallen within many days. It would go something like this....The first day Earl started building his house he made a foundation and after it hardened (which took 2 days) Earl made a frame to stand upon the foundation the second day he worked.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 16, 2014)

Augustine's metaphorical view of the separation of light from darkness would have the good angels called "day" and the bad angels called "night" ? 

Surely, it is more in keeping with the passage - which never explicitly refers to the creation of the supernatural realm, except possibly in Genesis 1:1 - that God is creating day and night on Day One, and dividing time, in the way that He will distinguish between sea and sky, and land and sea on subsequent days. If the creation is carried out on different days, it is foundational that day and night be created first.

Your other point seems to be the Punctuated 24-hour Day view, which I've never considered.

Both Augustine and the Punctuated 24-hour Day view appear to be eisegetical.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## earl40 (Feb 16, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> Augustine's metaphorical view of the separation of light from darkness would have the good angels called "day" and the bad angels called "night" ?
> 
> Surely, it is more in keeping with the passage - which never explicitly refers to the creation of the supernatural realm, except possibly in Genesis 1:1 - that God is creating day and night on Day One, and dividing time, in the way that He will distinguish between sea and sky, and land and sea on subsequent days. If the creation is carried out on different days, it is foundational that day and night be created first.
> 
> ...



So when God created the heaven and the earth how long was it dark before God created light? 12 hours?  I do agree Augustine point of calling the angels day and the demons night is eisegeical as is the possibility in assuming a 24 hour period of time before the Lord made the sun moon and stars which marked out the days, and years. As an old earther I really appreciate the young earthers take on what they think is a scientific teaching of scripture on how many hours were in a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I do not think scripture teaches how many hours were in a day before day 4 though I really do appreciate the zeal young earthers love The Word and wish "prove" it is inerrant. I also believe scripture is such (inerrant) though I do believe one of us errs in this matter.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 16, 2014)

Well if we presume a long period during which the natural world and cosmos was sitting there like " a blank canvas" waiting to be formed and filled, the twelve hours before the creation of light would be the beginning of the first day.

I don't think fusion models of the relationship of science to Christianity are the way to go, i.e. proving science by Scripture and proving Scripture by science.

Sound exegesis should be done and good science and then they should be brought together to see if they relate. If they don't exactly match up then something is wrong with the exegesis or the science, or we just have to wait for more light.

I find the 24/6 model to comport best with a straight forward reading of Scripture. I also find it theologically satisfying that the Creation is not billions of years without a Head, Man, and that death, destruction and natural selection aren't happening before Man sins. There seem to have to be various contortions on the part of OECs to explain that the days should not be taken as 24/6 (e.g. the Framework Hypothesis; what did Moses and his Israelites think about the Framework Hypothesis?) and various other things, such as the whole creation being under a curse (some OECs have posited that the Curse went backwards, whatever that means).

Some would hold that the YECs engage in convolutions with their scientific hypotheses in order to fit the science to their biblical interpretation, but I think their biblical interpretation is plainer and less convoluted, and the scientific project is a much broader and more complicated work, than learning what God would teach us from Scripture, that has still a long way to run.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## lynnie (Feb 16, 2014)

I am no expert, but I believe there was some form of light before the plants on day 3 and the sun/moon/stars day 4. Light can come from energized plasma, and the modern theories of the electric/plasma universe would fit in here. You can have light without sun and stars. Light before the heavenly bodies is no scientific proof of old age. There is much we do not know about the universe before the fall.


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 16, 2014)

This is how the OEC system comes across to me as I view it from a time line point of view.
The Bible, God's Word which appears to tell us plainly and easily enough that a primary school child can understand in Genesis that the world was created within 6 days actually is not that easily understood. It is actually veiled and we need to have biblical scholars teach us what it actually is saying.
In fact it is so deeply full of mystery that needs to be unfolded that it is taking centuries for us to figure out. 
New theory after new theory is put towards us, some never heard of before but are now the "hey, have you heard this one" theory "this one sounds right, it fits with science". So this now new theory of the Genesis account of creation is the one, it has taken centuries for man to figure it out. Now 1 guy has come along and has it.
Phew, thank goodness this guy came along and has been able to crack the Genesis code after all these centuries of Christians getting it wrong.
Do I believe for 1 second that Genesis is so, that it is or has taken centuries for someone to come along and crack the code and tell me what it really says? Or that we are left to walk around wondering and asking each other what it means, whats your take, what do you think it says? That the opening part of Gods Word, we still haven't figured out? No way.


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 16, 2014)

Light without the Sun.
Revelation 21 v 23 Revelation 22 v 5


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 16, 2014)

earl40 said:


> as is the possibility in assuming a 24 hour period of time before the Lord made the sun moon and stars which marked out the days, and years.



The misunderstanding comes from insisting on a modern definition of "hour." Today an hour is defined in a very precise scientific way, and this means a day is not exactly 24 hours, and no day is exactly the same period of time as another. However, in its original use, an hour was simply defined as 1/24th of any calendar day. "Are there not twelve hours in the day?" (John 11:9). If you took the period of light and divided it into 12 equal sections, you got an hour. They didn't normally need to be much more precise than this. This is the sense in which the days of creation were normal, 24-hour days. Now suppose you object that by this definition, a creation day could have been any arbitrary length of actual time - even billions of years. Even going along with that for the sake of argument, it doesn't help the old earth position. The old earth position involves billions of years in which a whole bunch of normal evening-and-morning cycles were occurring. One cannot simply squeeze this long time period into six evening-and-morning cycles. The plants would all have died from a billion years of darkness or a billion years of constant sunlight.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 16, 2014)

au5t1n said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > as is the possibility in assuming a 24 hour period of time before the Lord made the sun moon and stars which marked out the days, and years.
> ...



This all assumes 6 consecutive 24 hour periods of time of creation instead of 6 days He created within billions of years. Is there any reason one would have to assume from scripture that they were consecutive days and if Genesis is in some other literary type, like poetry, could it not mean such?


----------



## py3ak (Feb 16, 2014)

Could I have a billion years off between today and tomorrow? It'd be nice to catch up on some sleep!


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 16, 2014)

earl40 said:


> This all assumes 6 consecutive 24 hour periods of time of creation instead of 6 days He created within billions of years. Is there any reason one would have to assume from scripture that they were consecutive days and if Genesis is in some other literary type, like poetry, could it not mean such?



"And the evening and the morning were the third day" (Gen. 1:13). The days are defined as evening and morning cycles which take place in sequence and are associated with numbers that define the total number of days that have elapsed since "the beginning." As for Genesis 1 being poetry, I have three responses: 1. We could make any narrative in Scripture poetry with equal justification, 2. The frequent presence of the vav-consecutive indicates the passage is historical narrative, and 3. Even without Genesis 1, there is still Exodus 20:11, which cannot be poetry because it is in the middle of the Ten Commandments and is used as a factual reason for the fourth commandment.


----------



## MW (Feb 16, 2014)

I cannot hold to a young earth for the simple reason that everything was created in an operative state, which means it was fully developed. Young earth science is counter-productive. I expect science to show evidence of age.


----------



## thbslawson (Feb 16, 2014)

I've been tempted to enter into the discussion here on a number of occasions, but have refrained because I don't think I could possibly say anything that would remotely be productive given the circumstances. While there are some that I believe would be gracious in discussing the matter as brothers and looking at the exegetical arguments together (and yes, there are purely Biblical and exegetical arguments that can be made apart from science), I fear others would not be interested, having already judged my motives and heart based their own presuppositions, and would be a distraction from any real edifying discussion that could take place. I think this has already happened.

So what do you want me to do? Do you honestly want to talk about this? I have things I can bring to the table, but if it's going to turn nasty, and the only arguments presented are going to be "Repent you ignorant heretic" and sarcastic and snide remarks, then I have no interest in going any further.


----------



## Eved (Feb 16, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> So what do you want me to do? Do you honestly want to talk about this? I have things I can bring to the table, but if it's going to turn nasty, and the only arguments presented are going to be "Repent you ignorant heretic" and sarcastic and snide remarks, then I have no interest in going any further.



Do not assume of what will come. I personally would love to see some purely biblical exegetical arguments.


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 16, 2014)

Hello Thomas. Do you believe, that what God gave us in Genesis as the account for the creation of all is insufficient or not an entire account or that it is somehow, the truth, hidden or veiled. And that we have needed to wait for modern science and theories from others centuries later to show us what it really was all about? Lets say we take on board John Sailhamers version and say "that's it". Are we supposed to now think that it has taken all these centuries for someone like him to come along and enlighten us to the truth of the matter? This is how I view those like himself, his theories, as Godless. God is a God of truth. When they set forth theories or teachings that hold no truth I ask "show me God in that?"
ps Thomas, the responses here are tame compared to how I used to get hammered by OEC's, most of whom were RC, on the forum I left.


----------



## thbslawson (Feb 16, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> Hello Thomas. Do you believe, that what God gave us in Genesis as the account for the creation of all is insufficient or not an entire account or that it is somehow, the truth, hidden or veiled. And that we have needed to wait for modern science and theories from others centuries later to show us what it really was all about? Lets say we take on board John Sailhamers version and say "that's it". Are we supposed to now think that it has taken all these centuries for someone like him to come along and enlighten us to the truth of the matter? This is how I view those like himself, his theories, as Godless. God is a God of truth. When they set forth theories or teachings that hold no truth I ask "show me God in that?"
> ps Thomas, the responses here are tame compared to how I used to get hammered by OEC's, most of whom were RC, on the forum I left.



No I don't believe it's insufficient. Have you read Sailhamer? I guessing from what you've written here that you do not fully understand his position, or the evidence that he's given that his position is not "new," but is rather the way that Genesis 1 and 2 were understood historically.

If you haven't read him, that's fine. I don't expect everyone to. But you're attacking a straw man.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 16, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> I would refer you to this article on the subject.
> 
> Science, the Bible, and the Promised Land | Desiring God


Perman's analysis of Sailhamer's book is long and tortuous, and loaded with superfluous repetitions. So no, I'm not going to read it all the way through. His use of medieval rabbinical views are entirely pointless. I'm not going to ask a Buddhist monk to interpret scripture, why would I rely on some other teacher of a false religion to do so? His entire argument appears to hinge on separating Gen 1:1 from the rest of the sequence of events. God made clear no such distinction there or anywhere else in scripture. As with the English word beginning, the Hebrew word reshiyth can be used to refer to varying lengths of time, but there is no valid reason to insert any amount of time other than the first day unless modern science so-called is applied. This is what you decry as 'caving to science', so your protestations against it seem dubious. Why would you object to that term if it is exactly the root of your rejection of YEC?


----------



## thbslawson (Feb 17, 2014)

Mushroom said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > I would refer you to this article on the subject.
> ...



Thanks for the confirmation. I have no desire to discuss this issue any further in the face of such gracelessness.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 17, 2014)

I surrender, Thomas. You are correct that I find grace difficult to extend when by my reckoning you are attacking the reliability of scripture. I guess we can accuse each other of being beasts of one stripe or another and take our balls and go home.


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 17, 2014)

Historically speaking the Jews themselves have always believed Genesis to be literal. And it was to them whom the oracles of God were committed! I read enough of JS's article to know its the same type of reasoning as I was shown by the RC's on that other forum. I do understand his position, I had that many conversations on that forum where it was the same and it doesnt wash. I wonder who these people are who understood, historically, this interpretation of Genesis as being correct? What background are they from if you could tell me please?


----------



## GoodTreeMinistries.com (Feb 17, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.
> 
> Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?



Here is a short clip from John MacArthur on proof of a young Earth in Science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9qc0wL9R0o


----------



## Tyrese (Feb 17, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > thbslawson said:
> ...



Wait, which part? My point is that you can't read Genesis and automatically believe it teaches the old earth view. At face value it's to be understood literally. If you dont interpret the first few chapters of Genesis literally, then you have to get answers elsewhere. Do you disagree? That's why I asked what exactly are you guys doing? I see the articles being posted and they don't represent what God has said. They seem to be scientific explanations (albeit explanations by Christians), and not the childlike faith that God requires. I think someone else rightly pointed out how some people who hold the old earth view have a mild case of martyr complex. In no way was I trying to offend you brother. Ask me what I mean and I will be happy to clarify my comments. Feel free to PM me.


----------



## GoodTreeMinistries.com (Feb 17, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> I would refer you to this article on the subject.
> 
> Science, the Bible, and the Promised Land | Desiring God



Ok after reading this article I do not agree with this idea from Dr. John Sailhamer on the Old Earth. Normal reading of Genesis 1:1 to 1:2 seems to be the same process to me. With his theory it could still be a young Earth even since no time can be certain only guessed. I do however understand your side a little better now. I respect the ministry of Desiring God and that was the main reason I read the article. I agree with a lot of things from their ministry but as to Creation and gifts of the Spirit I believe they are wrong. I thank you for the article and agree with another person who posted this seems like the Gap Theroy.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 17, 2014)

Regardless if you and I may disagree with Sailhamer's conclusions, for the sake of honesty and accuracy it should be acknowledged that he does in fact take an exegetical, and not an eisigetical approach in deriving his arguments. That is, his method falls within the bounds of historical-grammatical interpretation, as he examines the original language and seeks to harmonize his understanding of it with the whole of Scripture. Nor is it correct to say, as some imply here, that he reads Genesis in a non-literal fashion. Rather, he has a different understanding of its scope and intent.

As such his does constitute an opposing view per the stated criteria of the OP.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 17, 2014)

In the article, it is stated that when heaven and earth occur together as "heaven and earth," the reference is to the totality of God's creation, not just the promised land. But Exodus 20:11 says, "For in six days God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." Sailhamer would have us read this as, "For in six days God prepared the promised land," even though it has already been admitted that "heaven and earth" means the totality of God's creation. This view is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I said that an interpretation of Genesis 1 may reflect great learning indeed, but be so convoluted that the interpreter is up in the exegetical clouds, his feet having lost all contact with the exegetical ground.


----------



## dcantrell2009 (Feb 17, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> I cannot hold to a young earth for the simple reason that everything was created in an operative state, which means it was fully developed. Young earth science is counter-productive. I expect science to show evidence of age.



Rev. Winzer,
I would like to read more about what you are saying here. Do you perhaps have a link to an essay or a previous discussion?


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 17, 2014)

Wow - didn't expect to see what I see here. But as a YEC guy, I think it is very simple and without the need for new theories and scientific gymnastics. There are six ordinal 'yom' designations in the process of creation. There is a further 'yom' designation in Gen 2:4, but it is a be-yom ('in the day of') and not a simple day.

I need no scientific support for it. For those that do, I want scientific support for a man three days dead to come back to life.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 17, 2014)

*Moderation*

This thread seems to be generating more heat than light. Time to shut it down.


----------

