Answers in Genesis responds to Modern Reformation Magazine

[Bookmeister]

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

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

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

 

[Skyler]

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

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

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

 

[jayce475]

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

Thoughts?

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

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

 

[TimV]

Yes, I didn't get that either

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

 

[Casey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Philip]

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

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

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

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

 

[Tripel]

Great article. Thanks for the link.

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

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

1. We're the professional geologists unlike that committee the PCA formed that didn't have any of us experts on it.

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

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

.
The geological evidence IS overwhelming.

3. Our model works therefore it is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Philip]

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

 

[jayce475]

Great article. Thanks for the link.

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

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

1. We're the professional geologists unlike that committee the PCA formed that didn't have any of us experts on it.

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

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

.
The geological evidence IS overwhelming.

3. Our model works therefore it is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Supahrob]

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

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

Take Care,
Rob
-----

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

 

[Theogenes]

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

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

 

[nasa30]

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

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

 

[Austin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shalom,

 

[Philip]

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

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

 

[Austin]

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

 

[Kevin]

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sastark]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kevin]

Seth,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LawrenceU]

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

 

[ChristianTrader]

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

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

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

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

CT

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

Seth,

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

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

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

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

 

[Austin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LawrenceU]

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

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

 

[ChristianTrader]

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

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

 

[sastark]

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

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

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

 

[Marrow Man]

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Philip]

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

 

[Austin]

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