# Why I am now a Young-Earth Creationist



## Confessor

I'll bet several of you remember my advocacy for theistic evolution earlier, as what I claimed was a means of marrying God's divine revelation and natural revelation together. Today I would like to officially renounce that view, in favor of a literal, six-day creation as an exegesis of Genesis would call for.

My thinking regarding this matter had to do with presuppositional apologetics. It wasn't so much a means of "staying true to God" (as if I felt bad about believing in evolution), but rather of staying true to rationality. Here was my thought process, which led me to believe that any type of science that goes against Scripture (and, subsequently, YEC), self-destructs. I'll use evolution as an obvious example:

1. Evolutionary theory, insofar as it denies the straightforward exegesis of Genesis, denies the inerrancy and the authority of Scripture.
2. In denying the authority of Scripture, evolutionary theory denies any possible grounds on which to make science (or anything) intelligible.
3. If science is not intelligible, then evolutionary theory cannot rationally be believed to be true.

Again, thanks to all of you who pointed out the atrocious eisegesis I was carrying out. You showed me where my allegiance was as I believed I could modify the Bible in light of creaturely science. "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

I am sorry.


----------



## Bygracealone

I praise God for His gracious work in your study of His Word. 

Thank you for sharing this with us brother.

In His grace,

Steve


----------



## skellam

That's great news! You are in good company with R.C. Sproul in your shift of views, as has been pointed out in another thread.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Praise God!!! I myself have come recently to the YEC position. 

Have you read _Creation and Change_ by Doug Kelly?


----------



## Confessor

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Have you read _Creation and Change_ by Doug Kelly?



I have not. I will probably get a hold of that in the future, though. Thanks for the recommendation.

Have you ever read _Faith, Form, and Time_ by Dr. Kurt Wise? I bought that book when I was a YEC before I became an evolutionist, and I think I will give it a re-read. He had a high position in giving information for the Creation museum in Kentucky (I think he might have been in charge; I can't remember), and I heard him speak for a couple days. In fact, he was with my group as we went through the Creation museum.

Anyway, seeing as he had a large role with the Creation museum, and I'm pretty sure a lot of guys in the Creation museum loved presuppositional apologetics, and presuppositional apologetics exists primarily in Reformed circles, I'm curious to know if Dr. Wise is Reformed.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

packabacka said:


> My thinking regarding this matter had to do with presuppositional apologetics. It wasn't so much a means of "staying true to God" (as if I felt bad about believing in evolution), but rather of staying true to rationality. Here was my thought process, which led me to believe that any type of science that goes against Scripture (and, subsequently, YEC), self-destructs. I'll use evolution as an obvious example:
> 
> 1. Evolutionary theory, insofar as it denies the straightforward exegesis of Genesis, denies the inerrancy and the authority of Scripture.
> 2. In denying the authority of Scripture, evolutionary theory denies any possible grounds on which to make science (or anything) intelligible.
> 3. If science is not intelligible, then evolutionary theory cannot rationally be believed to be true.



Ben - I certainly respect your view and stand on this, but I don't think it's appropriate to paint all OECers with such a broad brush. Not all those who believe in Old Earth Creation believe in theistic evolution, or any sort of evolution for that matter, as an explanation of life on Earth as we know it. 

Also, an OEC view does not contradict a straightforward exegesis of Scripture. People can certainly disagree on the issue, but wise men of God from the early church to present times have had views that Creation occurred over various time spans other than 6 24 hour periods, including multiple members of the Westminster assembly. 

Again, I respect your view on this and your change of thinking, but an OEC view is not absolutely contrary to Scripture, nor is it necessarily pro-evolutionary in thinking.


----------



## DMcFadden

Congrats on making the move. I was fool enough to wait until I was in my 50s to come around on this issue. You are to be congratulated for your decision. Yes, we do not want to paint OEC with too broad of a brush. Virtually all broad evangelical colleges and seminaries teach it and many certainly believe the Gospel. However, in my opinion, it is quite frequently an equivocating position born more of a desire to look good to a secular audience than from honest exegetical work. 

Hodge illustrates the problem well with his quote:



> ‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’


[Hodge, C., *Systematic Theology*, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997.]

But, why would we think that the Bible contradicts the "facts" unless we previously bought into an interpretation of the "facts" by those who begin with naturalistic presuppositions that leave little or no room for a supernatural deity? When you begin with a theistic set of presuppositions, the "facts" are quite amenable to the YEC viewpoint.

Christians who accept naturalistic presuppositions and try to reconcile them with biblical teaching are on a collision course with their sanity. Either they will surrender biblical teaching to the Zeitgeist of today (= atheistic naturalism) OR they will construct some Rube Goldberg far-feteched theory made possible only by some elaborate hermeneutical gymnastics. Compare this to the same way evangelicals try to reconcile homosexuality with the Bible or feminism with the Bible. Same story, different chapter.

BTW, Kelley is excellent. Must read.


----------



## JBaldwin

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ben - I certainly respect your view and stand on this, but I don't think it's appropriate to paint all OECers with such a broad brush. Not all those who believe in Old Earth Creation believe in theistic evolution, or any sort of evolution for that matter, as an explanation of life on Earth as we know it.
> 
> Also, an OEC view does not contradict a straightforward exegesis of Scripture. People can certainly disagree on the issue, but wise men of God from the early church to present times have had views that Creation occurred over various time spans other than 6 24 hour periods, including multiple members of the Westminster assembly.
> 
> Again, I respect your view on this and your change of thinking, but an OEC view is not absolutely contrary to Scripture, nor is it necessarily pro-evolutionary in thinking.



Could you outline in a few sentences what you mean by OEC?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

packabacka said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read _Creation and Change_ by Doug Kelly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not. I will probably get a hold of that in the future, though. Thanks for the recommendation.
> 
> Have you ever read _Faith, Form, and Time_ by Dr. Kurt Wise? I bought that book when I was a YEC before I became an evolutionist, and I think I will give it a re-read. He had a high position in giving information for the Creation museum in Kentucky (I think he might have been in charge; I can't remember), and I heard him speak for a couple days. In fact, he was with my group as we went through the Creation museum.
> 
> Anyway, seeing as he had a large role with the Creation museum, and I'm pretty sure a lot of guys in the Creation museum loved presuppositional apologetics, and presuppositional apologetics exists primarily in Reformed circles, I'm curious to know if Dr. Wise is Reformed.
Click to expand...


My wife is from Cincinnati and we will definitely be going to the museum next time we are in town. I have heard nothing but wonderful things about the place.


----------



## Confessor

JBaldwin said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben - I certainly respect your view and stand on this, but I don't think it's appropriate to paint all OECers with such a broad brush. Not all those who believe in Old Earth Creation believe in theistic evolution, or any sort of evolution for that matter, as an explanation of life on Earth as we know it.
> 
> Also, an OEC view does not contradict a straightforward exegesis of Scripture. People can certainly disagree on the issue, but wise men of God from the early church to present times have had views that Creation occurred over various time spans other than 6 24 hour periods, including multiple members of the Westminster assembly.
> 
> Again, I respect your view on this and your change of thinking, but an OEC view is not absolutely contrary to Scripture, nor is it necessarily pro-evolutionary in thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you outline in a few sentences what you mean by OEC?
Click to expand...


I know I was not asked the question, but I believe I can answer it sufficiently. If I err, then I assume someone will say so.

OEC = Old Earth Creationism = the belief that Genesis 1 is not literally interpreted as God's creation in six consecutive 24-hour days. There are a few variants: Gap Creationism (with a gap of indefinite time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2), Day-Age Creationism (that the six days represented longer periods of time than 24 hours), and the Literary Framework Interpretation (that the six days are a non-literal framework for the act of creation). There are certain variants, such as Progressive Creationism, but regarding the nature of the interpretation of "days," I believe this is an exhaustive list.


----------



## Confessor

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ben - I certainly respect your view and stand on this, but I don't think it's appropriate to paint all OECers with such a broad brush. Not all those who believe in Old Earth Creation believe in theistic evolution, or any sort of evolution for that matter, as an explanation of life on Earth as we know it.
> 
> Also, an OEC view does not contradict a straightforward exegesis of Scripture. People can certainly disagree on the issue, but wise men of God from the early church to present times have had views that Creation occurred over various time spans other than 6 24 hour periods, including multiple members of the Westminster assembly.
> 
> Again, I respect your view on this and your change of thinking, but an OEC view is not absolutely contrary to Scripture, nor is it necessarily pro-evolutionary in thinking.



I know OEC is not necessarily evolutionary, but I do believe it is an example of eisegesis. With a complete disregard for the scientific consensus of the day, I think an exegesis of Genesis 1 will undoubtedly yield YEC. Otherwise, by trying to reconcile scientific findings with Scripture (even if in the smallest degree), one is reducing the authority of Scripture and thus destroying the foundations of any science whatsoever.

For the record, I do not intend to label any OEC's as heretics (or anywhere near that) by any means. I just view them as making an exegetical error in order to reconcile the Bible with a separate authority. However, if it can be demonstrated that an exegesis of Scripture _with a disregard for scientific findings_ can yield an old-earth interpretation, then I will gladly revoke my claim.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Also, an OEC view does not contradict a straightforward exegesis of Scripture. People can certainly disagree on the issue, but wise men of God from the early church to present times have had views that Creation occurred over various time spans other than 6 24 hour periods, including multiple members of the Westminster assembly.



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



> Again, I respect your view on this and your change of thinking, but an OEC view is not absolutely contrary to Scripture, nor is it necessarily pro-evolutionary in thinking.



It is contrary to Scripture if you take the specific time denotations of the genealogies seriously, as historical narrative, which is what the grammar and style dictate.


----------



## ReformedSinner

Puritan Sailor:

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

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


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


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



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


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Sailor said:


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



John Lightfoot.

Also, the phrase God created everything "in the space of 6 24-hour days" was proposed and rejected by the Assembly. They preferred the less specific, and thus open to debate, "in the space of 6 days."

Both from the PCA document on creation found here: PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lightfoot.
> 
> Also, the phrase God created everything "in the space of 6 24-hour days" was proposed and rejected by the Assembly. They preferred the less specific, and thus open to debate, "in the space of 6 days."
> 
> Both from the PCA document on creation found here: PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000.
Click to expand...


The reports contradicts what you said: 


> At least five divines affirmed the Calendar Day view, possibly more. *No evidence has been found of any view other than the Calendar Day in the writings of individual divines. *



As for Lighfoot, Rev. Winzer dealt with that in this other thread, post #166:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/six-day-creation-worth-battle-28214/index5.html


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest here, if every Westminster divine held to the "traditional view", if indeed there is a "traditional" view, all that would prove is that the Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study and recent discoveries of ANE sources with which to engage.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Zenas

Too cool.


----------



## CDM

AV1611 said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest here, if every Westminster divine held to the "traditional view", if indeed there is a "traditional" view, all that would prove is that the Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study and recent discoveries of ANE sources with which to engage.
Click to expand...


Yes, let's be honest. When you say the "Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study" are you sure you do not mean that the Westminster divines *were not aware of evolutionary "science" as taught today*?

That is, you say there has been an evolution (pun intended) in "lingistic ANE studies" but isn't it true that these studies of the Creation account are done as a direct result of modern evolutionary science?

How many of these linguistic, scientific, or otherwise "studies" of the Creation account were conducted (and even remotely considered as plausible) pre-Darwin?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

mangum said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest here, if every Westminster divine held to the "traditional view", if indeed there is a "traditional" view, all that would prove is that the Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study and recent discoveries of ANE sources with which to engage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, let's be honest. When you say the "Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study" are you sure you do not mean that the Westminster divines *were not aware of evolutionary "science" as taught today*?
> 
> That is, you say there has been an evolution (pun intended) in "lingistic ANE studies" but isn't it true that these studies of the Creation account are done as a direct result of modern evolutionary science?
> 
> How many of these linguistic, scientific, or otherwise "studies" of the Creation account were conducted (and even remotely considered as plausible) pre-Darwin?
Click to expand...


What is interesting is that liberals have no problem conceding that Genesis states 6 calendar days and a young earth time-frame. They just believe the Scriptures are wrong. At least they are honest. They recognize that the naturalistic interpretations of scientific data and the straight-forward reading of Genesis are incompatible.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

What liberals would that be? My liberal OT professor's do not think Gen 1-2:4a represents 6/24.


----------



## DMcFadden

That is why I make the comparison to other issues of non-PC Christian conviction. Evangelical scholars are working overtime to find ways to compatibilize some form of the faith with current sociological and societal thinking on feminism and homosexuality. Judging by the way they have found hermeneutial loopholes to permit an uneasy reconciliation with the atheistic assumptions of science, it will be interesting to see how long it takes them to complete their work of joining the NT to the current thinking of the day.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> What liberals would that be? My liberal OT professor's do not think Gen 1-2:4a represents 6/24.
> 
> James Barr, for one.



Who edited my post?


----------



## DMcFadden

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> What liberals would that be? My liberal OT professor's do not think Gen 1-2:4a represents 6/24.



James Barr, for one.



> ‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
> 
> creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
> 
> the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
> 
> Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’



Those who do not have a dog in the hunt have no problem saying that the Bible teaches what it says. Only those who need to find creative work-arounds to reconcile the Bible have to resort to such expedients.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Sailor said:


> The reports contradicts what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least five divines affirmed the Calendar Day view, possibly more. *No evidence has been found of any view other than the Calendar Day in the writings of individual divines. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for Lighfoot, Rev. Winzer dealt with that in this other thread, post #166:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/six-day-creation-worth-battle-28214/index5.html
Click to expand...




> Lightfoot also asserted that the first day was 36 hours long...



This doesn't seem like much of a contradiction to me (perhaps the document contradicts itself). And Rev. Winzer's post doesn't really make sense to me. Lightfoot clearly wrote that he believe in a 36 hour day based on his chronology...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Sailor said:


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



OK, here goes. The OEC view (that the Earth is millions of years old) is novel in church history. However, the idea that the Genesis account represents something other than 6 24-hr periods is not new. And really, when you move from the 24-hr view, what difference does it make whether you believe each day was 25 hours or a million years? I would hold that it makes no difference, so that while the idea that the Earth is "very" old may be new in church history, the non-24-hr view of Genesis 1 is not.

While we're being honest, why can't YECers admit that the OEC view does not change our understanding of God, the Bible, and the Gospel? So long as one believes Adam and Eve were created distinct in the image of God as the first humans, I see nothing wrong with a Day-Age belief that the Earth is millions of year old. No one has ever shown (or even attempted to show) why this thinking is incorrect.


----------



## DMcFadden

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What liberals would that be? My liberal OT professor's do not think Gen 1-2:4a represents 6/24.
> 
> James Barr, for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who edited my post?
Click to expand...


My bad. I hit edit rather than quote. But, I fixed it immediately. Sorry for the mistake.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

DMcFadden said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What liberals would that be? My liberal OT professor's do not think Gen 1-2:4a represents 6/24.
> 
> James Barr, for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who edited my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad. I hit edit rather than quote. But, I fixed it immediately. Sorry for the mistake.
Click to expand...


No problem


----------



## DMcFadden

ColdSilverMoon said:


> While we're being honest, why can't YECers admit that the OEC view does not change our understanding of God, the Bible, and the Gospel? So long as one believes Adam and Eve were created distinct in the image of God as the first humans, I see nothing wrong with a Day-Age belief that the Earth is millions of year old. No one has ever shown (or even attempted to show) why this thinking is incorrect.



Actually, "while we're being honest," Answers in Genesis has spilled a great deal of ink and some DVD materials trying to answer exactly that question. 

There are various problems with the scenario you decribe, including the fact that it does change our view of the Bible. As I have argued elsewhere in other threads, taking a harmonizing view of Genesis with naturalistic assumptions does not really "work" on the face of it since they are incompatible presuppositions. And, when we finish the job of twisting the wax nose of Scripture to fit the "facts" and findings of naturalistic science, there is no room for a special creation of Adam and Eve. That WAS my position through college, seminary, a D.Min., and several other graduate programs. I tried to hold onto a unique special creation of our first parents in the midst of billions of years (now viewed as 13.8 and counting).

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


----------



## cih1355

DMcFadden said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> While we're being honest, why can't YECers admit that the OEC view does not change our understanding of God, the Bible, and the Gospel? So long as one believes Adam and Eve were created distinct in the image of God as the first humans, I see nothing wrong with a Day-Age belief that the Earth is millions of year old. No one has ever shown (or even attempted to show) why this thinking is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, "while we're being honest," Answers in Genesis has spilled a great deal of ink and some DVD materials trying to answer exactly that question.
> 
> There are various problems with the scenario you decribe, including the fact that it does change our view of the Bible. As I have argued elsewhere in other threads, taking a harmonizing view of Genesis with naturalistic assumptions does not really "work" on the face of it since they are incompatible presuppositions. And, when we finish the job of twisting the wax nose of Scripture to fit the "facts" and findings of naturalistic science, there is no room for a special creation of Adam and Eve. That WAS my position through college, seminary, a D.Min., and several other graduate programs. I tried to hold onto a unique special creation of our first parents in the midst of billions of years (now viewed as 13.8 and counting).
> 
> However, looking at my Rube Goldberg system a few years ago, it dawned on me that many problems are created (as well as solved) by the Day Age view. Death, for example, is theologially attributed to sin. But, allowing for millions of years of creational "trial and error" to produce the species of plants and animals, results in a God who keeps trying to get it right and finally interrupts his naturalistic enterprise to drop Adam and Eve into it. Death, then, is only "theologically" not factually the result of sin and that militates against the need for an Adam and Eve at all. If the Genesis saga is merely ANE cosmology gone Jewish, then why not see the whole thing the way Genome head and "evangelial" Francis Collins does, it is all theistic evolution from start to finish without the requirement of ANY divine intervention along the way? Adam and Eve become a quaint intrusion into a naturalistic schema that hardly requires them.
Click to expand...


Could someone who holds to OEC believe that there was no death before the Fall? I do not believe in OEC. I am asking just out of curiosity.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

DMcFadden said:


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



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

My point can be summarized as follows:

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

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

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

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


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

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


----------



## Confessor

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Actually, believing in a lack of animal death before the Fall is much more of a "trial and error" approach than evolution, though I don't believe in evolution per se. If you believe all animals were herbivores before the Fall, then you must by necessity believe in a 2nd creation, or at the very least an extreme modification of the existing creation. For example, were lions created with giant claws and teeth before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God had to redesign them completely, so that in fact they were not really lions at all to begin with. Or spiders - did they spin webs before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God essentially created a new species after the Fall or so changed the original that it would be completely different. So really if you believe animals did not die before the Fall, then you must believe in a trial and error approach, since God would either have to re-create everything or completely change everything, including very fundamental elements of the biosphere, namely the food chain. In reality, nothing in Scripture indicates there was no animal death before the Fall. However, there was clearly no human death. That I agree 100% with, and reject any theory that claims man evolved or arrived by any means other than special _ex nihilo_.
> 
> My point can be summarized as follows:
> 
> - First of all, one does not need to believe in evolution as an explanation for life on Earth to be an OECer. An OECer simply believes the Earth was created over millions of years, but that does not mean he or she accepts evolution (though most do).
> 
> - Second, one can accept evolution, so long as they believe humans did NOT evolve, but were created unique and distinct by God, and that the first human deaths did not occur until after the Fall.
> 
> - Third, evolution is not a "trial and error" process, but a divinely instituted refining process that is in place today. Evolution happens, at least on a small scale. To deny its existence is to deny simple observation. It is a wonderful mechanism of maintaining and enhancing the diversity of all God's creation. That does not mean all living things evolved from the so-called "primordial ooze" (an absurd belief, in my opinion), but it does mean evolution is a valid concept created by God.
> 
> - Fourth, while I have not read the Answers in Genesis material, I am still unconvinced that an Old Earth view of Creation changes anything theologically. God is still the Almighty, the Creator. Man was still created in His image, sinned against Him, and thus all his progeny are in need of a Savior. The Bible is still infallible and inerrant. So what if God took millions of years to mold Earth? So what if He did it instantly (as Augustine believed)? I fail to see how it changes any of our beliefs, other than our understanding of Genesis 1.



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

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


----------



## Stomata leontôn

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

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

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


----------



## InevitablyReformed

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


----------



## gene_mingo

InevitablyReformed said:


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



My father holds to the same idea.


----------



## sastark

InevitablyReformed said:


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



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

Whatever happened to "Let there be light"?


----------



## Jon Peters

sastark said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know of a very godly man who believes that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be billions of years. He argues that we could not see starlight that is billions of lightyears away were the universe only 6000 years old. He does affirm the 24/6 creation of LIFE on earth about 6000 years ago but that the earth (the rock) and the universe is billions of years old. Have any of you guys heard of this before?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without impugning the man's godliness: this is just silly. God can create the heavens and the stars that populate them, but He is incapable of creating the light between the stars and earth? He had to wait billions and billions of years for the light to travel from the star to earth?
> 
> Whatever happened to "Let there be light"?
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## Jon Peters

ColdSilverMoon said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, looking at my Rube Goldberg system a few years ago, it dawned on me that many problems are created (as well as solved) by the Day Age view. Death, for example, is theologially attributed to sin. But, allowing for millions of years of creational "trial and error" to produce the species of plants and animals, results in a God who keeps trying to get it right and finally interrupts his naturalistic enterprise to drop Adam and Eve into it. Death, then, is only "theologically" not factually the result of sin and that militates against the need for an Adam and Eve at all. If the Genesis saga is merely ANE cosmology gone Jewish, then why not see the whole thing the way Genome head and "evangelial" Francis Collins does, it is all theistic evolution from start to finish without the requirement of ANY divine intervention along the way? Adam and Eve become a quaint intrusion into a naturalistic schema that hardly requires them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, believing in a lack of animal death before the Fall is much more of a "trial and error" approach than evolution, though I don't believe in evolution per se. If you believe all animals were herbivores before the Fall, then you must by necessity believe in a 2nd creation, or at the very least an extreme modification of the existing creation. For example, were lions created with giant claws and teeth before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God had to redesign them completely, so that in fact they were not really lions at all to begin with. Or spiders - did they spin webs before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God essentially created a new species after the Fall or so changed the original that it would be completely different. So really if you believe animals did not die before the Fall, then you must believe in a trial and error approach, since God would either have to re-create everything or completely change everything, including very fundamental elements of the biosphere, namely the food chain. In reality, nothing in Scripture indicates there was no animal death before the Fall. However, there was clearly no human death. That I agree 100% with, and reject any theory that claims man evolved or arrived by any means other than special _ex nihilo_.
> 
> My point can be summarized as follows:
> 
> - First of all, one does not need to believe in evolution as an explanation for life on Earth to be an OECer. An OECer simply believes the Earth was created over millions of years, but that does not mean he or she accepts evolution (though most do).
> 
> - Second, one can accept evolution, so long as they believe humans did NOT evolve, but were created unique and distinct by God, and that the first human deaths did not occur until after the Fall.
> 
> - Third, evolution is not a "trial and error" process, but a divinely instituted refining process that is in place today. Evolution happens, at least on a small scale. To deny its existence is to deny simple observation. It is a wonderful mechanism of maintaining and enhancing the diversity of all God's creation. That does not mean all living things evolved from the so-called "primordial ooze" (an absurd belief, in my opinion), but it does mean evolution is a valid concept created by God.
> 
> - Fourth, while I have not read the Answers in Genesis material, I am still unconvinced that an Old Earth view of Creation changes anything theologically. God is still the Almighty, the Creator. Man was still created in His image, sinned against Him, and thus all his progeny are in need of a Savior. The Bible is still infallible and inerrant. So what if God took millions of years to mold Earth? So what if He did it instantly (as Augustine believed)? I fail to see how it changes any of our beliefs, other than our understanding of Genesis 1.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## staythecourse

sastark said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know of a very godly man who believes that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be billions of years. He argues that we could not see starlight that is billions of lightyears away were the universe only 6000 years old. He does affirm the 24/6 creation of LIFE on earth about 6000 years ago but that the earth (the rock) and the universe is billions of years old. Have any of you guys heard of this before?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without impugning the man's godliness: this is just silly. God can create the heavens and the stars that populate them, but He is incapable of creating the light between the stars and earth? He had to wait billions and billions of years for the light to travel from the star to earth?
> 
> Whatever happened to "Let there be light"?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## DMcFadden

Jon Peters said:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## sastark

Jon Peters said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know of a very godly man who believes that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be billions of years. He argues that we could not see starlight that is billions of lightyears away were the universe only 6000 years old. He does affirm the 24/6 creation of LIFE on earth about 6000 years ago but that the earth (the rock) and the universe is billions of years old. Have any of you guys heard of this before?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without impugning the man's godliness: this is just silly. God can create the heavens and the stars that populate them, but He is incapable of creating the light between the stars and earth? He had to wait billions and billions of years for the light to travel from the star to earth?
> 
> Whatever happened to "Let there be light"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does seem a bit odd to get hung up on something like that. Was Adam created with the appearance of age or did God create him beginning at the fertilization stage? Even this presupposes that things were created with some appearance of age, i.e., the sperm and the egg had some age.
> 
> This objection to a literal reading of Genesis strikes me as having naturalistic assumptions: God can somehow only work within the processes of Nature. Or am I reading too much into it?
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## Confessor

DMcFadden said:


> The belief that life evolved on earth (with or without divine intervention) over 3.5 billion years implies an endless series of starts, dead ends, new starts, etc. Death is part of the warp of woof of the idea of "nature" red in tooth and claw.
> 
> Most progressive creationists (e.g., Ross) want to posit a unique humanity back between 40k and 100k. Interestingly, prior to the discovery of Australian peoples dated back nearly 100k, Ross was saying that the first human was only 40k-50k. What does that make the Australian indigenous peoples, subhuman "savages"???
> 
> If you accept the theory of evolution, you have a very long history of human development, with thousands of generations of death before your mythical "Adam." Frankly, that takes more faith to believe than the straight-forward account in Genesis.
> 
> All I am contending is that if you read some of the better YEC material, written by PhD's in microbiology, genetics, astrophysics, geology, etc., you will discover that they offer plausible explanations for all of the same facts interpreted by the Darwinists in a naturalistic direction.
> 
> I am convinced that this is a clash of presuppositions as incompatible as oil and water. IFF you want to attempt an accommodation, you can probably do it. We are, after all, very clever apes (they say). However, I still think that you will find such efforts at hermeneutical gymnastics coming back to bite you in the Doctrine of God, the Doctrine of the Word of God, the Doctrine of Redemption, the Doctrine of Humanity Made in the Image of God, marriage, homosexuality, and a host of other topics.
> 
> Do I consign the progressive creationists to hell? Of course not! I was a conservative evangelical fighting against a liberal mainline denomination while an Old Earther. However, examined presuppositionally, it is not that hard of a choice. No advance in science depends upon the "truth" of evolution. And, the curse of Darwin is as bad as Pelagianism in countering a right belief in the Gospel.
> 
> At least read some of the AiG material before dismissing it as nonsense.



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

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


----------



## staythecourse

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

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

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


----------



## gene_mingo

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


----------



## DMcFadden

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

Don't brush off the AiG site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Starlight and Time*, Dr. Russell Humphreys, PhD (Master Books, 1994). Dr. Humphreys employs the gravitational time dilation explanation for how distant starlight could reach earth in a YEC setting.
*
Starlight, Time and the New Physics*, John Hartnett, PhD (Creation Book Publishers, 2007). This physicist/cosmologist picks up where Humphreys leaves off. The math is in the appendices.


----------



## Archlute

ReformedSinner said:


> Puritan Sailor:
> 
> I don't know any Westminster Assemblers differ from 24/7 view but I do know giants like Augustine, Kuyper, Bavinck, just to quickly name a few that opposes 24/7 read and favors alternative exegetical possibilities.
> 
> And yes there ARE alternative exegetical possibilities that respects the genre and style of Genesis 1-2, in the original Hebrew.



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


----------



## Archlute

AV1611 said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest here, if every Westminster divine held to the "traditional view", if indeed there is a "traditional" view, all that would prove is that the Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study and recent discoveries of ANE sources with which to engage.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Puritan Sailor

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest is all I want. I would like propenents of new theories like the framework hypothesis or OEC to concede their ideas are novel in church history and have no place in our Confessional documents. They are an exception. Only after everyone is honest about it will the Church adequately wrestle through the issue in an edifying way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we're being honest, why can't YECers admit that the OEC view does not change our understanding of God, the Bible, and the Gospel?
Click to expand...


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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Puritan Sailor

sastark said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without impugning the man's godliness: this is just silly. God can create the heavens and the stars that populate them, but He is incapable of creating the light between the stars and earth? He had to wait billions and billions of years for the light to travel from the star to earth?
> 
> Whatever happened to "Let there be light"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does seem a bit odd to get hung up on something like that. Was Adam created with the appearance of age or did God create him beginning at the fertilization stage? Even this presupposes that things were created with some appearance of age, i.e., the sperm and the egg had some age.
> 
> This objection to a literal reading of Genesis strikes me as having naturalistic assumptions: God can somehow only work within the processes of Nature. Or am I reading too much into it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of all the arguments against a young earth, I find this to be the weakest for two reasons: First, God could have created the light between the stars and earth just as easily as He created the stars and the earth. Second, this argument assumes we know the nature of the universe and how light travels through it. I find that to also be a huge assumption.
> 
> Well, I guess the third objection is that a plain reading of the creation account does not allow for anything but a 6 day creation. But the first two were the ones I wanted to emphasize.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## cih1355

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


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, believing in a lack of animal death before the Fall is much more of a "trial and error" approach than evolution, though I don't believe in evolution per se. If you believe all animals were herbivores before the Fall, then you must by necessity believe in a 2nd creation, or at the very least an extreme modification of the existing creation. For example, were lions created with giant claws and teeth before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God had to redesign them completely, so that in fact they were not really lions at all to begin with. Or spiders - did they spin webs before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God essentially created a new species after the Fall or so changed the original that it would be completely different. So really if you believe animals did not die before the Fall, then you must believe in a trial and error approach, since God would either have to re-create everything or completely change everything, including very fundamental elements of the biosphere, namely the food chain. In reality, nothing in Scripture indicates there was no animal death before the Fall. However, there was clearly no human death. That I agree 100% with, and reject any theory that claims man evolved or arrived by any means other than special _ex nihilo_.
> 
> My point can be summarized as follows:
> 
> - First of all, one does not need to believe in evolution as an explanation for life on Earth to be an OECer. An OECer simply believes the Earth was created over millions of years, but that does not mean he or she accepts evolution (though most do).
> 
> - Second, one can accept evolution, so long as they believe humans did NOT evolve, but were created unique and distinct by God, and that the first human deaths did not occur until after the Fall.
> 
> - Third, evolution is not a "trial and error" process, but a divinely instituted refining process that is in place today. Evolution happens, at least on a small scale. To deny its existence is to deny simple observation. It is a wonderful mechanism of maintaining and enhancing the diversity of all God's creation. That does not mean all living things evolved from the so-called "primordial ooze" (an absurd belief, in my opinion), but it does mean evolution is a valid concept created by God.
> 
> - Fourth, while I have not read the Answers in Genesis material, I am still unconvinced that an Old Earth view of Creation changes anything theologically. God is still the Almighty, the Creator. Man was still created in His image, sinned against Him, and thus all his progeny are in need of a Savior. The Bible is still infallible and inerrant. So what if God took millions of years to mold Earth? So what if He did it instantly (as Augustine believed)? I fail to see how it changes any of our beliefs, other than our understanding of Genesis 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the fact that we can't imagine an old earth -- I made a nice model involving evolution that didn't alter other doctrine -- it's that a straightforward reading of Scripture, while holding Scripture as the supreme authority, yields an indisputable young-earth conclusion.
> 
> If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the land of geocentrism. 

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> Welcome to the land of geocentrism.
> 
> CT



Where does exegesis require geocentrism?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

cih1355 said:


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



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


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the land of geocentrism.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does exegesis require geocentrism?
Click to expand...


When you use the criteria used above:

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

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

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

Joshua 10:12-13

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

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

CT


----------



## regenerated

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

I do not believe in evolutionary theism.

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

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

choose wisely.


cheers

R


----------



## Archlute

regenerated said:


> All this debate/discussion about whether you are an OEC or YEC advocate is rather intellectually boring I must say.
> 
> I do not believe in evolutionary theism.
> 
> To try and prove by debate/discussion that OEC or YEC is the correct belief system is like children arguing in the playground.
> 
> We are a people of faith and we will be judged accordingly.
> 
> choose wisely.
> 
> 
> cheers
> 
> R



That is putting it in a rather simplistic manner. 

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


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the land of geocentrism.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does exegesis require geocentrism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you use the criteria used above:
> 
> "If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical."
> 
> Then you are without any other options than geocentrism. That is why you would be hard pressed to find anyone throughout church history who held to anything other than geocentrism before Galileo/Copernicus etc.
> 
> The usual first text that is pointed to is Joshua's long day
> 
> Joshua 10:12-13
> 
> 12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
> 
> 13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


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

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

Thanks for pointing out my flaw.


----------



## Confessor

Archlute said:


> regenerated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this debate/discussion about whether you are an OEC or YEC advocate is rather intellectually boring I must say.
> 
> I do not believe in evolutionary theism.
> 
> To try and prove by debate/discussion that OEC or YEC is the correct belief system is like children arguing in the playground.
> 
> We are a people of faith and we will be judged accordingly.
> 
> choose wisely.
> 
> 
> cheers
> 
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is putting it in a rather simplistic manner.
> 
> As has been said before, the approach that one takes in interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis will have a direct effect upon how one views the interpretation of other parts of Scripture, and will have a bearing on the understanding of related doctrines. We may all be "people of faith", but as James says, teachers will be judged with a stricter judgment. I shouldn't think that the ability for an issue to generate intellectual excitement among ministers of the Word should be our main reason for sifting the truth of an issue.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does exegesis require geocentrism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you use the criteria used above:
> 
> "If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical."
> 
> Then you are without any other options than geocentrism. That is why you would be hard pressed to find anyone throughout church history who held to anything other than geocentrism before Galileo/Copernicus etc.
> 
> The usual first text that is pointed to is Joshua's long day
> 
> Joshua 10:12-13
> 
> 12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
> 
> 13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the only text to demonstrate geocentrism? It is ambiguous. It allows for several interpretations within it and does not necessitate a belief in geocentrism. Someone reading that could interpret that the sun literally stopped, or that the sun in the sky, according to the observer, appeared to stop moving.
> 
> My point is that Genesis 1 is quite clear and straightforward, and others have to insert their meaning into it. I guess I should not have been so stringent as to say we should ignore all science when exegeting (my apologies), but we should make sure not to insert meanings when no true ambiguity exists. We should not allow science to supercede or falsify Scripture, although it can help to clear up ambiguities.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out my flaw.
Click to expand...


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

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

CT


----------



## Archlute

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you use the criteria used above:
> 
> "If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical."
> 
> Then you are without any other options than geocentrism. That is why you would be hard pressed to find anyone throughout church history who held to anything other than geocentrism before Galileo/Copernicus etc.
> 
> The usual first text that is pointed to is Joshua's long day
> 
> Joshua 10:12-13
> 
> 12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
> 
> 13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only text to demonstrate geocentrism? It is ambiguous. It allows for several interpretations within it and does not necessitate a belief in geocentrism. Someone reading that could interpret that the sun literally stopped, or that the sun in the sky, according to the observer, appeared to stop moving.
> 
> My point is that Genesis 1 is quite clear and straightforward, and others have to insert their meaning into it. I guess I should not have been so stringent as to say we should ignore all science when exegeting (my apologies), but we should make sure not to insert meanings when no true ambiguity exists. We should not allow science to supercede or falsify Scripture, although it can help to clear up ambiguities.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out my flaw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was actual ambiguity then why is something other than geocentrism never found in church history until "science" changed its mind?
> 
> There is a greater consensus in Church history concerning geocentrism than YEC.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I doubt that. 

There is at least as much for both, if not more for the latter, taking into account the entirety of Church history.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

regenerated said:


> All this debate/discussion about whether you are an OEC or YEC advocate is rather intellectually boring I must say.
> 
> I do not believe in evolutionary theism.
> 
> To try and prove by debate/discussion that OEC or YEC is the correct belief system is like children arguing in the playground.
> 
> We are a people of faith and we will be judged accordingly.
> 
> choose wisely.
> 
> 
> cheers
> 
> R




I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying we shouldn't discuss any debatable and "unsolvable" topics on this forum? Should we no longer discuss baptism, EP, or eschatology? What would be the point of PB at all then?


----------



## JohnV

One might think that science is only a recent addition to the mix. But that's hardly the case. Men before Jesus' day were also scientists and researchers. I recall reading somewhere that the A&P doors (as I call them: you know, those doors that open automatically when you approach them) were invented before the time of Christ. They never caught on because slaves were a lot easier and less expensive to get. But they're here now, and everyone's got them. Well, you can thank someone from the time of the great scientists of the Greek culture for them. 

I also remember reading that they had figured out the circumference of the earth to an acceptable margin of error already by then too? They did this scientifically, of course. 

And in my memory sticks the idea that the first time someone believed that the earth actually orbited the sun, and that the moon orbited the earth was before Christ? Again, science at work. 

Science has been around for a long, long time. And it has a long, long record. What we see today, and what we normally call "science" is often not science at all. It's just people with degrees in the science fields speaking outside their area of expertise, and making philosophical or religious statements from extrapolation, not science. 

Like one famous detective used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am!"


----------



## sastark

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you use the criteria used above:
> 
> "If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical."
> 
> Then you are without any other options than geocentrism. That is why you would be hard pressed to find anyone throughout church history who held to anything other than geocentrism before Galileo/Copernicus etc.
> 
> The usual first text that is pointed to is Joshua's long day
> 
> Joshua 10:12-13
> 
> 12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
> 
> 13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only text to demonstrate geocentrism? It is ambiguous. It allows for several interpretations within it and does not necessitate a belief in geocentrism. Someone reading that could interpret that the sun literally stopped, or that the sun in the sky, according to the observer, appeared to stop moving.
> 
> My point is that Genesis 1 is quite clear and straightforward, and others have to insert their meaning into it. I guess I should not have been so stringent as to say we should ignore all science when exegeting (my apologies), but we should make sure not to insert meanings when no true ambiguity exists. We should not allow science to supercede or falsify Scripture, although it can help to clear up ambiguities.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out my flaw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was actual ambiguity then why is something other than geocentrism never found in church history until "science" changed its mind?
> 
> There is a greater consensus in Church history concerning geocentrism than YEC.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Until science changed its mind? Science didn't change it's mind: Galileo observed the phases of Venus, thus proving a heliocentric model of the solar system. Are you aware that Copernicus' _De Revolutionibus_ and his heliocentric model did not catch on until Galileo's observations were published (40 years after Copernicus' death)? The leading model before Galileo was that of Tycho Brahe: a geocentric model (actually, more of a hybrid geocentric-heliocentric, but the earth was still at the center). It was only due to observed phenomena that the heliocentric model caught on.

We should not think that it was due to their interpretation of biblical passages such as Joshua 10 that Christians thought we were in a geocentric universe. Rather, the reason was a lack of observational data to counter the geocentric (Aristotelian) model that they had inherited from the Greeks. And that is the foundation of science: observation. Of course, pre-Galilean Christians built their theories on biblical presuppositions (that is, they did not out right reject geocentricism because it did not openly oppose any biblical passage or doctrine); however, they were seeking to explain the data they had available to them at the time. When more data became available, they revised their theories accordingly.

It is also of note that Galileo received the greatest rejection of heliocentricism from the Roman Catholic Church. The protestants were much more accepting of the new model, and it was a Lutheran: Johannes Kepler, who provided the simple (beautiful) mathematical formula to explain the elliptical revolutions of the planets around the Sun.

The history of geocentricism is not a history of science vs. religion, but a history of the slow purging of pagan Greek thought out of the Christian philosophy. Heliocentricism was just one more nail in Aristotle's coffin.


----------



## Archlute

JohnV said:


> One might think that science is only a recent addition to the mix. But that's hardly the case. Men before Jesus' day were also scientists and researchers. I recall reading somewhere that the A&P doors (as I call them: you know, those doors that open automatically when you approach them) were invented before the time of Christ. They never caught on because slaves were a lot easier and less expensive to get. But they're here now, and everyone's got them. Well, you can thank someone from the time of the great scientists of the Greek culture for them.
> 
> I also remember reading that they had figured out the circumference of the earth to an acceptable margin of error already by then too? They did this scientifically, of course.
> 
> And in my memory sticks the idea that the first time someone believed that the earth actually orbited the sun, and that the moon orbited the earth was before Christ? Again, science at work.
> 
> Science has been around for a long, long time. And it has a long, long record. What we see today, and what we normally call "science" is often not science at all. It's just people with degrees in the science fields speaking outside their area of expertise, and making philosophical or religious statements from extrapolation, not science.
> 
> Like one famous detective used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am!"



That is quite interesting! Did they use pressure plates for the doors (certainly those fellows hadn't developed motion sensors yet, right... )?


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> If there was actual ambiguity then why is something other than geocentrism never found in church history until "science" changed its mind?
> 
> There is a greater consensus in Church history concerning geocentrism than YEC.
> 
> CT



I'm not saying science is worthless and should never be taken into account, but when there is no debate among scientists between geo- and heliocentrism, and the Bible does not speak clearly on the matter (and therefore science would not be superseding the Bible), we have no reason to believe that the universe is geocentric. Observations point us to the conclusion that the solar system is heliocentric, and the Bible does not tell us either way. For all that we can tell, then, the solar system is indeed heliocentric.


----------



## JohnV

Archlute said:


> That is quite interesting! Did they use pressure plates for the doors (certainly those fellows hadn't developed motion sensors yet, right... )?



I read it in a history book one time. I lost the reference, though, so I can't look it up. Yes, as I recall, the doors were pneumatic, and therefore likely worked with a pressure plate. 

Whether true or not, though, (because I can't cite the reference) the point is that people were just as interested in science back then as we are now, and maybe even more so. At least they didn't believe that men came from monkeys . I would think that this would be the reason why the resurrection was so hard for some to believe when Paul preached it; and why some, like some of the Corinthians and Thesselonians, took it to refer to religious belief only and not to an actual occurrence. That also gives Paul's question to King Agrippa that much more poignancy: "Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?" He's talking about a real God speaking and acting into a real world. If Jesus is not really raised, then our faith is futile, and we are found to be liars, scientifically speaking, and therefore religiously speaking as well. 

So when people were talking about creation back then they were just as much concerned about scientific credibility as we are today, and maybe even more so (because men coming from monkeys wasn't scientifically credible back then.) The time in history when this fell off was only the period we call the dark ages.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Archlute said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only text to demonstrate geocentrism? It is ambiguous. It allows for several interpretations within it and does not necessitate a belief in geocentrism. Someone reading that could interpret that the sun literally stopped, or that the sun in the sky, according to the observer, appeared to stop moving.
> 
> My point is that Genesis 1 is quite clear and straightforward, and others have to insert their meaning into it. I guess I should not have been so stringent as to say we should ignore all science when exegeting (my apologies), but we should make sure not to insert meanings when no true ambiguity exists. We should not allow science to supercede or falsify Scripture, although it can help to clear up ambiguities.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out my flaw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was actual ambiguity then why is something other than geocentrism never found in church history until "science" changed its mind?
> 
> There is a greater consensus in Church history concerning geocentrism than YEC.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that.
> 
> There is at least as much for both, if not more for the latter, taking into account the entirety of Church history.
Click to expand...


I was going on the assumption that everything after Calvin does not count as being a part of what is called, "Church History". 

CT


----------



## sastark

JohnV said:


> The time in history when this fell off was only the period we call the dark ages.



Can you define "dark ages"?


----------



## JohnV

Personally, my view is that the other explanations of the creation days are not equal in status to the six-regular-day explanation. They derive from people's theological persuasions as a result of superimposing their adiaphora choices upon the interpretation of the Bible; whereas the six-regular-day explanation is not so. 

Calling the word "yom" into question does not result in a devalued status for the six-day view and a raised status for the other explanations. They still are not equal. And therefore one is not free to choose between these several views, including the six-day view, as if they could all equally be true. There remains a huge status difference between them; they are not equal. You can read things into the text, or you can read things out of the text: it's not the same thing.

And that, as I take it, is what the opening post tried to say as well.


----------



## JohnV

sastark said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time in history when this fell off was only the period we call the dark ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define "dark ages"?
Click to expand...


I can't give you dates off the top of my head. It was the time when religious symbolism was at it's height, and the belief and faith of religion was as much divorced from reality as the world has ever seen, except for religious symbolism that could be gleaned out of it. It would be the time previous to the renaissance, and to which it was such a contrast


----------



## sastark

JohnV said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time in history when this fell off was only the period we call the dark ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define "dark ages"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't give you dates off the top of my head. It was the time when religious symbolism was at it's height, and the belief and faith of religion was as much divorced from reality as the world has ever seen, except for religious symbolism that could be gleaned out of it. It would be the time previous to the renaissance, and to which it was such a contrast
Click to expand...


I asked because the term "Dark Ages" is an invention of Enlightenment philosophers seeking to downplay the advances made by Christian men from the Fall of the Roman empire until the rebirth of humanism in the Renaissance. 

Just a personal pet peeve of mine. I'm not intending to step on anyone's toes.


----------

