Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?
- Thread starter Reformed Covenanter
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The more you get to know me, the more you'll realize the cruel irony of my last name.
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
With regard to the idea of scripture illuminating science, forgive me for interjecting a scientific discovery that did bring about an illumination upon Scripture, and that is the heliocentric model of the solar system by Kepler. The scripture that says that "the sun stood still" is technically incorrect, for the sun does not move around the earth. Rather, "the earth quit rotating" would have been a more accurate statement. So, why does the Bible speak a somewhat inaccurate statement? The idea of scripture illuminating science does not always hold. I don't think it demeans scripture, however, to know that it has a technically innacurate statement. But rather, it shows the genuineness of the writings, for the writings reflect the understanding of the time period in which the writers wrote. It would seem odd for Joshua to write that the earth quit rotating, for no one thought that the earth even moved at that time in history. The earth-centered model was believed for even 1500 years or so after Christ, and, according to scripture's account, it was believed during Joshua's time as well. Do we think that the integrity of scripture depends upon it incorporating all truth about how the earth/sun system functions? If so, then, perhaps Joshua would have written more along the level of Einstein and have given some formula that said the curvature of space became altered so as to impose a frictional force upon the earth, or the flux capacitor quit fluxing or...something else we haven't discovered yet.
So, I thought it would be good to consider that some parts of scripture must be understood in the context of the times in which it was written, and that it doesn't always illuminate science. Scripture is indeed infinitely superior; but sometimes, when a literal interpretation intersects with an authentic scientific discovery, a study into the history of the understanding of the times may need to be considered for the scriptural account. How does this bear upon the Genesis matter? I don't know if it does. That's for us to debate. Personally, I lean towards the literal interpretation.
Blessings!
So, I thought it would be good to consider that some parts of scripture must be understood in the context of the times in which it was written, and that it doesn't always illuminate science. Scripture is indeed infinitely superior; but sometimes, when a literal interpretation intersects with an authentic scientific discovery, a study into the history of the understanding of the times may need to be considered for the scriptural account. How does this bear upon the Genesis matter? I don't know if it does. That's for us to debate. Personally, I lean towards the literal interpretation.
Blessings!
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear Matthew,
Thanks again for the responses. As I said before I've immensely enjoyed this thread. Sorry I've been somewhat tardy given my work commitments. The start of semester is always a bottleneck.
Just for the record I'm not driven by so-called scientific evidence for an old or young earth. My concern is with what the actual text says.
I was raised on the "day-age" view; Hugh Ross visited my church when I was a teenager. But really, when we read "and there was evening and there was morning, the Xth day", it's obvious how "day" (yom) is to be understood in the context of the narrative!
I can appreciate the supposed "literal" view of Gen. 1-3 and I'm very happy for people to hold it. However, this thread has confirmed the position of which I remain convinced, not least because of the insufficient ways the figure of the "snake" has been explained. To me the literalist reading runs aground right there. Henri Blocher (among others) has been a decisive influence on my own conclusions in this respect. (Indeed, he was the first to convince me of the covenant of works in Gen. 2!).
I can appreciate your point, but again, I don't buy it and believe it's methodlogically flawed. It skews the historical data, especially given Augustine's influence in the early and late medieval period. We see this, for example, in Peter Lombard's Sentences. Lombard believed that God created a material and formless world in Gen. 1:1-2, and then gave it form in the 6 days. Lombard disagrees with Augustine, who (Lombard believed) argued that it was created (both matter and form) at once (simul). Lombard recounts that Augustine had his followers and that they took the 6 days as God's accommodation to human frailty:
Augustine was an influence, whether we like it or not. Call him confused (and I don't think he was by the end of his life) but he presented ideas which people took up and used. Here we see "those" who believed that the days were a part of the text's accommodation of God to "rough and carnal" people. To remove Augustine and his influence from a historical theology of creation pulls it completely out of shape.
Simple, you place him in his historical context (the time when the gap theory took off, due to the rise of geology in the 1790s and onwards) and look at those under Chalmers' influence. For more information read: M. Roberts, “The Genesis of John Ray and his Successors”, Evangelical Quarterly 74/2 (2202):143-163.
No it's not what I was "hoping"--be careful not to assume to know my motives. It is from the actual words of the title: "all harmelesse". Moreover, "strange" in the 17th century could mean "unfamiliar", which is most likely the meaning here given the context; the next words: "and rarely heard of before".
Concerning Origen and Ambrose check out Bob Letham's “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly” Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999):149-174.
Blessings and thanks. Have a wonderful weekend and Lord's Day.
Thanks again for the responses. As I said before I've immensely enjoyed this thread. Sorry I've been somewhat tardy given my work commitments. The start of semester is always a bottleneck.
Just for the record I'm not driven by so-called scientific evidence for an old or young earth. My concern is with what the actual text says.
I was raised on the "day-age" view; Hugh Ross visited my church when I was a teenager. But really, when we read "and there was evening and there was morning, the Xth day", it's obvious how "day" (yom) is to be understood in the context of the narrative!
I can appreciate the supposed "literal" view of Gen. 1-3 and I'm very happy for people to hold it. However, this thread has confirmed the position of which I remain convinced, not least because of the insufficient ways the figure of the "snake" has been explained. To me the literalist reading runs aground right there. Henri Blocher (among others) has been a decisive influence on my own conclusions in this respect. (Indeed, he was the first to convince me of the covenant of works in Gen. 2!).
I can appreciate your point, but again, I don't buy it and believe it's methodlogically flawed. It skews the historical data, especially given Augustine's influence in the early and late medieval period. We see this, for example, in Peter Lombard's Sentences. Lombard believed that God created a material and formless world in Gen. 1:1-2, and then gave it form in the 6 days. Lombard disagrees with Augustine, who (Lombard believed) argued that it was created (both matter and form) at once (simul). Lombard recounts that Augustine had his followers and that they took the 6 days as God's accommodation to human frailty:
Augustine was an influence, whether we like it or not. Call him confused (and I don't think he was by the end of his life) but he presented ideas which people took up and used. Here we see "those" who believed that the days were a part of the text's accommodation of God to "rough and carnal" people. To remove Augustine and his influence from a historical theology of creation pulls it completely out of shape.
Simple, you place him in his historical context (the time when the gap theory took off, due to the rise of geology in the 1790s and onwards) and look at those under Chalmers' influence. For more information read: M. Roberts, “The Genesis of John Ray and his Successors”, Evangelical Quarterly 74/2 (2202):143-163.
No it's not what I was "hoping"--be careful not to assume to know my motives. It is from the actual words of the title: "all harmelesse". Moreover, "strange" in the 17th century could mean "unfamiliar", which is most likely the meaning here given the context; the next words: "and rarely heard of before".
Concerning Origen and Ambrose check out Bob Letham's “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly” Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999):149-174.
Blessings and thanks. Have a wonderful weekend and Lord's Day.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, I too think the "day-age" theory has wings on it.
In my most humbling and full of grace tone.
Taken as greatly humble and full of grace dear brother!
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear Hermonta,
This is a potted overview off the top of my head without primary documents at hand. So please excuse imprecision.
The influential (perhaps dominant?) view of the the age of the world in Graeco-Roman antiquity was that it was eternal; matter (and spirit) was understood as eternal. This idea seeped into Gnosticism.
Given this predominant cosmogony someone like Justin Martyr (100-165AD) seems to believe that matter was eternal and that God merely fashioned it into the world in which people dwelt rather than created it from nothing. (A classic case of not quite breaking out of one's cultural grid).
However, a huge leap forward for Christian theology occurred with Irenaeus (d.early 3rd century) in his battle with Gnosticism. He was the one to argue for creation from nothing and see its important implications. Creation ex nihilo was codified then into an early version of the Apostle's Creed (the old Roman Creed).
We can fairly say that most theologians (perhaps all) from the 3rd century onwards believed in a young earth.
The change towards an old earth began in the second half of the 17th century as modern science was being born, and people were studying ancient cultures etc. By the turn of the century into the 1700s most churchmen (in England I can't say for the USA) believed that the earth was older than 6000 years or so. This was justified in that it was believed there was a significant period of time that elapsed between Gen. 1:1 and 1:3.
The next big step was around the 1790s when geology proper was born. The world was believed to perhaps be millions of years old. This didn't perturb most churchmen (in England) as they already believed creation wasn't 6000 years old. There were, of course, some dissenters. However, around the turn of the century (into tthe 1800s) and due to the new geology, the gap theory arose. This was the idea that there was a catastrophe between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, and it was then when Satan rebelled and "fell from heaven".
By 1850 and due to the expansion of geological study, the "gap theory" was being questioned (rightly) and began to give way to the "day age" theory (i.e. the 6 days of creation are 6 ages). This theory has continued to the present (a modern adherent being Hugh Ross). Charles Hodge (if I remember rightly) deployed it as he believed in an old earth.
Of course when Darwin released The Origin of the Species in 1859, the problem wasn't that of a young earth being attacked--most churchmen believed in an old earth. The big issue was evolution. Hence, most of the attacks on evolution were by Christians who believed in an old earth.
It was about 1921 (if I remember rightly) when William Jennings Bryan launched his anti-evolution agenda. This was because he believed Darwinianism was the influence that led to Germany's war policy in WWI. Bryan himself (in the Scopes monkey trial) argued for an old earth, using the day-age theory.
It was actually George McCready Price (1870-1963), a 7th day adventist, who was the advocate of a young earth and literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-3. He strongly argued for this because he was a 7th day adventist following Ellen White's inspired (he believed) opinion on the 7th day Sabbath. He argued, unlike almost everyone else, that the geological strata was a result of a worldwide flood.
Many anti-evolutionists worked with Price, but most were old-earthers and didn't agree with Price's take on the flood.
To cut a long story short, the modern revival of Price's ideas took place in 1961 when The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Henry Morris was released and sold well. Whitcomb and Morris were particularly writing against Bernard Ramm's recent book A Christian View of Science (?), which rejected the gap-theory, day-age theory, literalist theory, and argued for so-called "literary" or "framework" reading of Genesis 1-3.
I hope that answers your questions, brother.
Every blessing and trade hard (I once was in IT for merchant banks before I went into the ministry).
This is a potted overview off the top of my head without primary documents at hand. So please excuse imprecision.
The influential (perhaps dominant?) view of the the age of the world in Graeco-Roman antiquity was that it was eternal; matter (and spirit) was understood as eternal. This idea seeped into Gnosticism.
Given this predominant cosmogony someone like Justin Martyr (100-165AD) seems to believe that matter was eternal and that God merely fashioned it into the world in which people dwelt rather than created it from nothing. (A classic case of not quite breaking out of one's cultural grid).
However, a huge leap forward for Christian theology occurred with Irenaeus (d.early 3rd century) in his battle with Gnosticism. He was the one to argue for creation from nothing and see its important implications. Creation ex nihilo was codified then into an early version of the Apostle's Creed (the old Roman Creed).
We can fairly say that most theologians (perhaps all) from the 3rd century onwards believed in a young earth.
The change towards an old earth began in the second half of the 17th century as modern science was being born, and people were studying ancient cultures etc. By the turn of the century into the 1700s most churchmen (in England I can't say for the USA) believed that the earth was older than 6000 years or so. This was justified in that it was believed there was a significant period of time that elapsed between Gen. 1:1 and 1:3.
The next big step was around the 1790s when geology proper was born. The world was believed to perhaps be millions of years old. This didn't perturb most churchmen (in England) as they already believed creation wasn't 6000 years old. There were, of course, some dissenters. However, around the turn of the century (into tthe 1800s) and due to the new geology, the gap theory arose. This was the idea that there was a catastrophe between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, and it was then when Satan rebelled and "fell from heaven".
By 1850 and due to the expansion of geological study, the "gap theory" was being questioned (rightly) and began to give way to the "day age" theory (i.e. the 6 days of creation are 6 ages). This theory has continued to the present (a modern adherent being Hugh Ross). Charles Hodge (if I remember rightly) deployed it as he believed in an old earth.
Of course when Darwin released The Origin of the Species in 1859, the problem wasn't that of a young earth being attacked--most churchmen believed in an old earth. The big issue was evolution. Hence, most of the attacks on evolution were by Christians who believed in an old earth.
It was about 1921 (if I remember rightly) when William Jennings Bryan launched his anti-evolution agenda. This was because he believed Darwinianism was the influence that led to Germany's war policy in WWI. Bryan himself (in the Scopes monkey trial) argued for an old earth, using the day-age theory.
It was actually George McCready Price (1870-1963), a 7th day adventist, who was the advocate of a young earth and literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-3. He strongly argued for this because he was a 7th day adventist following Ellen White's inspired (he believed) opinion on the 7th day Sabbath. He argued, unlike almost everyone else, that the geological strata was a result of a worldwide flood.
Many anti-evolutionists worked with Price, but most were old-earthers and didn't agree with Price's take on the flood.
To cut a long story short, the modern revival of Price's ideas took place in 1961 when The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Henry Morris was released and sold well. Whitcomb and Morris were particularly writing against Bernard Ramm's recent book A Christian View of Science (?), which rejected the gap-theory, day-age theory, literalist theory, and argued for so-called "literary" or "framework" reading of Genesis 1-3.
I hope that answers your questions, brother.
Every blessing and trade hard (I once was in IT for merchant banks before I went into the ministry).
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
As a general observation: we may stumble over the fact that Satan uses a serpent to accomplish his goals, but we should note that if he had appeared as an angel or some other non earthly creature, it was less likely that his deception would have been successful.
As Meredith Kline (and probably others) point out, the very fact that he used God's creation to tempt man shows us his destructive nature: overturning the hierarchy that God has built into His creation: God -> man (male & female) -> plants, animals
As Meredith Kline (and probably others) point out, the very fact that he used God's creation to tempt man shows us his destructive nature: overturning the hierarchy that God has built into His creation: God -> man (male & female) -> plants, animals
Very good!
You will have to excuse us conservative types if we don't express the same enthusiasm for Blocher.
Upon whom was Augustine's "instantaneous creation" influential? Apparently not on anyone from the mainstream of Christian theology. In order to make the schoolman's evaluation properly critical we would need to know what group of thinkers he had in mind. The scholastics are notorious for discussing obscure points which have relatively little importance.
This is legend, Marty. It gets passed from one paper to another without critical assessment. But I'll get to that paper as soon as it comes out in 2202.
I'm sure "strange" does mean something like "unfamiliar." That's my point. It's not Lightfoot's own view, contrary to your initial assertion. His own view was 2/12 hour periods for the first day, as quoted previously.
I've read this article and note it is at odds with the writings of the men it purports to represent. Please consult the statements of the men themselves which I provided in my previous post.
You too, brother.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear Matthew,
BTW I hope you guys haven't been hit by the floods up your way? It's been an awful sight on the news.
Yes, of course, I'm willing to excuse hyper-conservatives on this point.
Matthew, as I said in an earlier post, Anselm admitted in his day that Augustine's view was the "majority".
"Legend" is too strong a word In my humble opinion. I'm happy with evidence on this point. I agree that a full study of Chalmer's views hasn't been done yet. But there's enough evidence all around to convince me. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Is it the Vegemite that gives you the expectation to be around for so long?
Just how many more children are you planning to have? By 2202 you'll have a church bigger than Joel Osteen's full of your family. What a wonderful thought.
Yes, but the point of the discussion is that Lightfoot clearly thinks it's a "harmless" view.
Bob Letham is an excellent scholar In my humble opinion, and I agree with his reading.
God bless you.
BTW I hope you guys haven't been hit by the floods up your way? It's been an awful sight on the news.
Yes, of course, I'm willing to excuse hyper-conservatives on this point.
Matthew, as I said in an earlier post, Anselm admitted in his day that Augustine's view was the "majority".
"Legend" is too strong a word In my humble opinion. I'm happy with evidence on this point. I agree that a full study of Chalmer's views hasn't been done yet. But there's enough evidence all around to convince me. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
But I'll get to that paper as soon as it comes out in 2202.
Is it the Vegemite that gives you the expectation to be around for so long?
Just how many more children are you planning to have? By 2202 you'll have a church bigger than Joel Osteen's full of your family. What a wonderful thought.
Yes, but the point of the discussion is that Lightfoot clearly thinks it's a "harmless" view.
Bob Letham is an excellent scholar In my humble opinion, and I agree with his reading.
God bless you.
I'm somewhat lost as far as what has and hasn't been said on this post, but to address the original question:
- Christian astronamer Hugh Ross makes an interesting observation in regards to the distance of stars from earth in relation to the speed of light. He asserts that if we can measure how long it takes for light from distant stars to reach earth, we can accurately measure the age of the earth. Ross argues that his findings actually supports creation and refutes evolution! Whether or not his assersion is correct I do not know, but I thought I would include it. P.S. Ross is an old-earther.
- In reference to the use of yom, I would point to the KJV Bible, specifically Genesis 2:4. Here, yom is used not as a day, but as an expanse of time.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts!
- Christian astronamer Hugh Ross makes an interesting observation in regards to the distance of stars from earth in relation to the speed of light. He asserts that if we can measure how long it takes for light from distant stars to reach earth, we can accurately measure the age of the earth. Ross argues that his findings actually supports creation and refutes evolution! Whether or not his assersion is correct I do not know, but I thought I would include it. P.S. Ross is an old-earther.
- In reference to the use of yom, I would point to the KJV Bible, specifically Genesis 2:4. Here, yom is used not as a day, but as an expanse of time.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts!
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Is it the Vegemite that gives you the expectation to be around for so long?
Just how many more children are you planning to have? By 2202 you'll have a church bigger than Joel Osteen's full of your family. What a wonderful thought.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
1. As to Hugh Ross . . . he bases his apologetic on the fact of the Big Bang. However, the Big Bang was not the prevalent view in cosmology until a few decades ago. And, his argument about light is a double edged sword. The Big Bang has its own distant starlight problem, the horizon problem. While some scientists have attempted to come up with work arounds, the problem remains that you cannot fit observational distances in the known universe into the time frame of the "assured" findings of science according to the Big Bang (i.e., 13.8 billion years or so is not more than a quarter of the time needed to account for known distances).
Several physicists have proposed explanations that account for the distant starlight problem within a young earth time frame (e.g., gravitational time dilation).
2. Young earth creationists agree that "yom" means differing things, depending on the context. "Back in my day (when I was 8), my parents took four days to drive all day to Illinois on vacation." In that one sentence the word means three different things. The same is true of the Bible. In Genesis 2 the word refers to more than one 24 hour period. However, whenever you have the linguistic limiters ("day and night," day one, etc.) that specify a 24 hour period, it should be taken in the normal sense. Thus, I have come to believe in a young earth creationist postion (cf. Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics)
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
On early Church fathers views:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm
On the Bible suggesting an old earth:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm
Morton's main menu that addresses both scientific and Biblical aspects of the issue:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
Anybody here familiar with Glenn Morton?
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm
On the Bible suggesting an old earth:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm
Morton's main menu that addresses both scientific and Biblical aspects of the issue:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
Anybody here familiar with Glenn Morton?
I think we should defend it as well Brother:The first Part of Genesis DEALS with creation: There was an Evening, there was a morning..." if we begin to undermine this, I think we are on a slippery slope!
ReformedChapin
Puritan Board Freshman
The point is that not everything is very clear on the bible and we shouldn't stress out over non-essential issues. There is going to be some things we don't understand.I think we should defend it as well Brother:The first Part of Genesis DEALS with creation: There was an Evening, there was a morning..." if we begin to undermine this, I think we are on a slippery slope!
OK, from your argument, what if I said :Well,Genesis is not that clear, perhaps the Gospels are not either. Perhaps they need a "touch" of Higher Criticism to bring out just the basic elements o Truth.The point is that not everything is very clear on the bible and we shouldn't stress out over non-essential issues. There is going to be some things we don't understand.I think we should defend it as well Brother:The first Part of Genesis DEALS with creation: There was an Evening, there was a morning..." if we begin to undermine this, I think we are on a slippery slope!
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
OK, from your argument, what if I said :Well,Genesis is not that clear, perhaps the Gospels are not either. Perhaps they need a "touch" of Higher Criticism to bring out just the basic elements o Truth.The point is that not everything is very clear on the bible and we shouldn't stress out over non-essential issues. There is going to be some things we don't understand.I think we should defend it as well Brother:The first Part of Genesis DEALS with creation: There was an Evening, there was a morning..." if we begin to undermine this, I think we are on a slippery slope!
This is my point exactly etexas; if someone can say the history of Genesis 1-3 is not literal, then what is to stop then from saying that the historical accounts of the virgin birth and resurrection are not literal either. I am not saying that everyone who takes a non-literal view of Genesis 1 would go down that road, but it is difficult to what logical barrier there is to this.
Yes, it would be hard to avoid such thinking! I mean the 4 Gospels are not always "clear", does this give me the right to reinterpret? I see no "diff" with Genesis, but hey, if someone wants to mangle the Bible, why not start at the first book!
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Yes, it would be hard to avoid such thinking! I mean the 4 Gospels are not always "clear", does this give me the right to reinterpret? I see no "diff" with Genesis, but hey, if someone wants to mangle the Bible, why not start at the first book!
As the psalmist said: "If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?"
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
Just to make known, there are still some geocentrists running around
CT
Are you serious? Please elaborate when you get the chance.
Blessings!
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Yes, it would be hard to avoid such thinking! I mean the 4 Gospels are not always "clear", does this give me the right to reinterpret? I see no "diff" with Genesis, but hey, if someone wants to mangle the Bible, why not start at the first book!
EXACTLY! I don't mean to sound like the crotchety old guy . . . but more than 35 years ago my Christian college profs convinced me that we should take Genesis symbolically. Without even thinking the issue through, I would throw out the "Genesis 2:4 uses 'yom' for a longer period than 24 hours" quip to dismiss critics as flat earthers. By the time I arrived in seminary, a prof was using the SAME line of thinking to explain that Paul was "wrong" about women in 1 Tim 2. Before that same prof died a few years ago, he was endorsing homosexuality using the SAME kind of hermeneutic for Romans.
Brothers and sisters, please take time to read some of the arguments FOR YOURSELVES.
If you have a problem with the issue of distant starlight, read up on gravitational time dilation, alternate synchrony conventions, and books by phsyicist Russell Humphreys or astrophysicist Jason Lisle. If you have issues with plate techtonics and the possibility of rapid subduction explaining the evidence, cf. geophysicist John Baumgardner. If you are want arguments against the antiquity of the race based on genetics, cf. J.C. Sanford's work on genetic entropy. The RATE study sponsored by ICR did some amazing work on radiometric dating.
Better yet, check out the Answers in Genesis web site: Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. For the general reader, the New Answers Book, available from Answers in Genesis has a great overview of the issues with chapters like these:
* Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years?
* Couldn’t God Have Used Evolution?
* Don’t Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature?
* What about the “Gap” & “Ruin-reconstruction” Theories?
* Cain’s Wife—Who Was She?
* Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
* Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?
* Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old?
* Was There Really a Noah’s Ark & Flood?
* How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed?
* What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?
* Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?
* Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?
* Don’t Creationists Believe Some “Wacky” Things?
* Where Does the Ice Age Fit?
* Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is “Old”?
* Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?
* How Did Defense/Attack Structures Come About?
* Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution?
* Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True?
The study done by a Hebrew professor at Masters Seminary on the literary structure of Genesis was quite enlightening as well. Statistical analysis makes it nearly impossible to read this as anything other than historical narrative.
Since I only came to the YEC position myself during the last few years, I do not want to imply that those who disagree with me are heretics or willful in their ignorance. Most evangelicals and many Reformed thinkers have zero problem with billions of years and believing the Gospels. However, I contend that they are inconsistent in this belief. There does seem to be an organic connection between failing to treat the Bible with normal hermeneutics in Genesis and dismissing all kinds of politically incorrect beliefs in the New Testament.
holyfool33
Puritan Board Freshman
Can't we all just get along
It depends on what you mean by serious there are some good arguments for Six Day Creation. But sadly the Answers in Genesis crowd seems to want to atack anyone who disagrees with them. I favor the day-age theory o in there thinking I don't support true biblical exegesis i support an idea that down plays the historicity of Adam and makes suffering and death happen before the fall. This just doesn't compute with me because who says it has to be a literal 24 hour day it could very well have taken millions upon millions of years to create the earth but I don't really feel in the long run it is something worth going to war over.
It depends on what you mean by serious there are some good arguments for Six Day Creation. But sadly the Answers in Genesis crowd seems to want to atack anyone who disagrees with them. I favor the day-age theory o in there thinking I don't support true biblical exegesis i support an idea that down plays the historicity of Adam and makes suffering and death happen before the fall. This just doesn't compute with me because who says it has to be a literal 24 hour day it could very well have taken millions upon millions of years to create the earth but I don't really feel in the long run it is something worth going to war over.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Yet on other threads you have said that you favour Dispensationalism because it takes a literal approach (to literature which is obviously not literal), yet you favour a non-literal approach to a historical account? Seems a very strange position to hold?
Tell me, why can't the word day mean a literal day in Genesis 1? What is the significance of the phrase the "evening and the morning" if the day age theory is correct?
holyfool33
Puritan Board Freshman
First off I know nothing of Greek or Hebrew so I would only end up making myself look foolish. I also said I favor the day age view C.I Scofield favored Gap Creationism so Dispensationalism and a literal seven days are not joined at the hip as far as why Genesis 1 doesnt mean a literal day I dont know I have my view you have your's I just disagree with the ad homin attacks of a lot of Young Earth creationists on people who dont hold there view it seems rather "unchristian" if you ask me. Also let's not forget if you want to take Genesis literally what about Job 40 is that a Dinosaur then?
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Aaron,
You were reponding to Daniel. However, you raise some important points. In my post immediatley above your own, I did not engage in ad hominem attacks on anybody. My post also supplied bibliographic suggestions for exploring issues such as plate techtonic rapid subduction, decay in the genome, etc. There was no unchristian attack on anyone. In fact, I shared my own "testimony" of living most of my adult life as a day ager until re-examining the issue a few years ago. Ultimately, however, it is not a matter of one person having "my view" and another having a different one. Certainly, shouldn't we be able to agree that the Scripture rules over our own "views" whatever they might be?
And, ultimately one must determine how the divine author and human author intended Genesis 1-11 to be understood. Literary analysis of the text by the prof at The Master's Seminary is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct, we should all be YEC people. If it is incorrect, please explain to me how and why. Perhaps you will convince me of the superiority of your exegesis.
You were reponding to Daniel. However, you raise some important points. In my post immediatley above your own, I did not engage in ad hominem attacks on anybody. My post also supplied bibliographic suggestions for exploring issues such as plate techtonic rapid subduction, decay in the genome, etc. There was no unchristian attack on anyone. In fact, I shared my own "testimony" of living most of my adult life as a day ager until re-examining the issue a few years ago. Ultimately, however, it is not a matter of one person having "my view" and another having a different one. Certainly, shouldn't we be able to agree that the Scripture rules over our own "views" whatever they might be?
And, ultimately one must determine how the divine author and human author intended Genesis 1-11 to be understood. Literary analysis of the text by the prof at The Master's Seminary is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct, we should all be YEC people. If it is incorrect, please explain to me how and why. Perhaps you will convince me of the superiority of your exegesis.
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
Good comments Dennis. All that is needed is consistent exegesis in order to be convinced that the Genesis narrative records a literal 6 day creation. I would argue, however, that they don't have to be 24 hour days. This can make us lose credibility. For instance, a day today is not 24 hours, that's why we have leap year. And the earth has been slowing down since at least the flood, unless something has affected it to make it turn faster that we don't know about. If, as some think, the earth was enclosed by an ice canopy before the flood, then it is entirely possible that the cataclysmic events that lead to the flood could have changed the rotation of the earth. So, I leave the number of hours alone. A day could have been 23 hours, it could have been 30. Frankly, I don't care. Scripture makes it clear that it was literally an evening and a morning. That's all we really need to know. Here's some more information that helps, from a purely exegetical perspective.
And Aaron, the dinosaurs definitely were created during this time, and most of them likely perished in the flood. The change in atmospheric conditions would have caused incredible changes in temperature, including instant freezing at the poles, which accounts for woolly mammoths being discovered with undigested food in the stomachs and whale fossils vertically embedded in the layers of earth that "scientists" claim represent millions of years.
In regard to Job 40, it very well could have been a dinosaur. And Job 41 may very well be referring to a dragon. I don't know. However, I will not dare to stand in judgment over that which God has put in judgment over me, namely, Scripture. It says what it says, and if I can't figure it out then it means I'm limited in my understanding. Any claim that God's Word doesn't mean exactly what it says presupposes that
Simply put, the old earth hypothesis is untenable both Scripturally and scientifically. Any effort to say otherwise is reminiscent of the words of that old Deceiver, "Hath God surely said...?"
This, as you have alluded to, comes from my admittedly literal and dispensational hermeneutic. If one is true to the dispensational hermeneutic then they have not choice but to be joined at the hip with the 6 literal day creation; regardless of what Scoffield or anyone else says about it.
Dennis, who was the TMS prof that wrote the article. I either missed it in the thread, or something.
And Aaron, the dinosaurs definitely were created during this time, and most of them likely perished in the flood. The change in atmospheric conditions would have caused incredible changes in temperature, including instant freezing at the poles, which accounts for woolly mammoths being discovered with undigested food in the stomachs and whale fossils vertically embedded in the layers of earth that "scientists" claim represent millions of years.
In regard to Job 40, it very well could have been a dinosaur. And Job 41 may very well be referring to a dragon. I don't know. However, I will not dare to stand in judgment over that which God has put in judgment over me, namely, Scripture. It says what it says, and if I can't figure it out then it means I'm limited in my understanding. Any claim that God's Word doesn't mean exactly what it says presupposes that
- we have all the information we need
- we can correctly interpret all the information we have
- we can correctly apply our interpretation
Simply put, the old earth hypothesis is untenable both Scripturally and scientifically. Any effort to say otherwise is reminiscent of the words of that old Deceiver, "Hath God surely said...?"
This, as you have alluded to, comes from my admittedly literal and dispensational hermeneutic. If one is true to the dispensational hermeneutic then they have not choice but to be joined at the hip with the 6 literal day creation; regardless of what Scoffield or anyone else says about it.
Dennis, who was the TMS prof that wrote the article. I either missed it in the thread, or something.
holyfool33
Puritan Board Freshman
I am not criticizing anybody I have no real objection to the young earth view I just feel that some of it's proponents can be a tad bit over zealous that's really the only hold up I have I understand the use of science in proofing the young earth theory but doesn't this just end up turning into a shell game?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
