Creation question.....

[ChristianTrader]

Mason,
I am not really trying to fight your position, I just want it to be crystal clear that OEC is a novelty in found only in very recent history. There is no footing whatever to be found for it in history. Sometimes people use some sleight of hand to use some disagreement in history about one point to somehow justify a position that was never in doubt. I am not accusing you of such. Just trying to make sure everyone stays honest.

The fierce subscription to the belief comes from the viewpoint that capitulation on this issue easily leads to capitulation elsewhere. It looks like an easy case of capitulation because no one held to it until "science" started attacking it. Somehow the hermeneutics changed. Why, if it is not capitulation?

As an aside, do you believe that Noah's flood was worldwide? Almost no OEC that I know of believes that it was.

CT

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Mason,
I am not really trying to fight your position, I just want it to be crystal clear that OEC is a novelty in found only in very recent history. There is no footing whatever to be found for it in history. Sometimes people use some sleight of hand to use some disagreement in history about one point to somehow justify a position that was never in doubt. I am not accusing you of such. Just trying to make sure everyone stays honest.

As an aside, do you believe that Noah's flood was worldwide? Almost no OEC that I know of believes that it was.

CT

Thanks for the clarification, and yes, I do believe in a worldwide, global flood, because it was a supernatural event, just as the 10 plagues were supernatural events, along many other events in the Old Testament.

Having said that, the belief that the flood was limited to the "known world," or where all humans resided (thus wiping out all humans except Noah and his family, as the Bible says), is plausible in my mind. But it actually makes more sense to me that god caused the deluge to cover the entire planet, rather than a limited area.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Contrary to popular belief Light was not the first thing God created:

"...and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, Gen. 1:2b.

Water was the first thing which God Created - unless you want to say that water is as eternal as God? I hope not.

I think that the water referred to here are the waters of the Earth from which the land rises up, 1:10. Thus, the perspective of the whole Creation week is from that of Earth.

When God created light - it was an external light source shining upon the waters. From the perspective of the Earth a twenty-four hour day should be expected.

What I find very compelling is Dr. Humphrey's "White Hole Cosmology" from the Answers in Genesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.

I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.

If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the waw signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.

I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.

WCF Chapter 4

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.


Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional. It will take a lot to shift me from this position, if the six days of Genesis 1 does not refer to six literal days, then I am not sure that I understand anything.

 

[AV1611]

Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional.

As is denying the pope be the antichrist yet you are happy to deny that

On a serious note; the Westminster divines understood the central message - God created - but what they missed was the literary means by which God tells us this. This was not their fault, just one of those things.

 

[A5pointer]

Hi:

Contrary to popular belief Light was not the first thing God created:

"...and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, Gen. 1:2b.

Water was the first thing which God Created - unless you want to say that water is as eternal as God? I hope not.

I think that the water referred to here are the waters of the Earth from which the land rises up, 1:10. Thus, the perspective of the whole Creation week is from that of Earth.

When God created light - it was an external light source shining upon the waters. From the perspective of the Earth a twenty-four hour day should be expected.

What I find very compelling is Dr. Humphrey's "White Hole Cosmology" from the Answers in Genesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf

Blessings,

-CH

You bring up an interesting point. The text does not say that God created the sea(deep). It was assumed in ANE parallel accounts of creation that the sea already existed kind of like the biblical account. Yikes another can of worms.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional.

As is denying the pope be the antichrist yet you are happy to deny that

On a serious note; the Westminster divines understood the central message - God created - but what they missed was the literary means by which God tells us this. This was not their fault, just one of those things.

Actually, all joking aside, I am not "happy" to deny that point, I have wrestled with it for years, but am not presently convinced I could swear to that in good conscience. Therefore, for the sake of integrity, I must take an exception.

 

[AV1611]

Actually, all joking aside, I am not "happy" to deny that point, I have wrestled with it for years, but am not presently convinced I could swear to that in good conscience. Therefore, for the sake of integrity, I must take an exception.

Their interpretation of Revelation was necessarily coloured by their culture and historic circumstances.

My point was fairly obvious and I am sure you got the point; you are welcome to charge me as being unconfessional, but if you do so, make sure you agree jot and tittle with it yourself. That you don't, renders your whole point somewhat moot.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Actually, all joking aside, I am not "happy" to deny that point, I have wrestled with it for years, but am not presently convinced I could swear to that in good conscience. Therefore, for the sake of integrity, I must take an exception.

Their interpretation of Revelation was necessarily coloured by their culture and historic circumstances.

My point was fairly obvious and I am sure you got the point; you are welcome to charge me as being unconfessional, but if you do so, make sure you agree jot and tittle with it yourself. That you don't, renders your whole point somewhat moot.

Not necessarily; I have no problem with someone admitting that they do not agree with the WCF when they genuinely don't. However, this needs to be made clear.

I agree with what you say about the Puritan interpretation of Revelation.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

WCF Chapter 4

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.


Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional. It will take a lot to shift me from this position, if the six days of Genesis 1 does not refer to six literal days, then I am not sure that I understand anything.

"In the space of 6 days" is still sufficiently broad to allow for an OEC view depending on what is meant by "day." Besides, some of the Assembly members believed the days weren't exactly 24 hrs. Are you saying writers of the confession were unconfessional?

 

[RamistThomist]

WCF Chapter 4

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.


Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional. It will take a lot to shift me from this position, if the six days of Genesis 1 does not refer to six literal days, then I am not sure that I understand anything.

"In the space of 6 days" is still sufficiently broad to allow for an OEC view depending on what is meant by "day." Besides, some of the Assembly members believed the days weren't exactly 24 hrs. Are you saying writers of the confession were unconfessional?

First, I agree that *some* (read minority) were not 6/24.

However, this is the same line of reasoning that FVers use to justify their position as being confessional.

"Well, its broad enough to mean that."

Several at the confession didn't believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Does that mean that denying the imputation is confessional?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Several at the confession didn't believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Does that mean that denying the imputation is confessional?

Not to get off topic, but which several were those exactly?

 

[ChristianTrader]

WCF Chapter 4

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.


Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional. It will take a lot to shift me from this position, if the six days of Genesis 1 does not refer to six literal days, then I am not sure that I understand anything.

"In the space of 6 days" is still sufficiently broad to allow for an OEC view depending on what is meant by "day." Besides, some of the Assembly members believed the days weren't exactly 24 hrs. Are you saying writers of the confession were unconfessional?

This is no history in the church for OEC. Why do you even look to history to in anyway justify it? Why not just say that your scientific knowledge leads you to the position and be done with it.

CT

 

[AV1611]

This is no history in the church for OEC.

William Shedd notes that "respecting the length of the six creative days, speaking generally, for there was some difference of views, the patristic and medieval exegesis makes them to be long periods, not days of twenty-four hours. The latter interpretation has prevailed only in the modern church." (Dogmatic Theology, 1:474-76)

Then we have E. J. Young, who following O. T. Allis, wrote "But then there arises the question as to the length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like."

J. Gresham Machen: "It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time." (The Christian View of Man)

Neither Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, nor B. B. Warfield regarded the six 24 hour day view of creation as exegetically required by a careful reading of Genesis 1, and Warfield even allowed for evolution if memory serves me correctly.

 

[Ravens]

As I intimated earlier, I'm curious whether Old Earthers and Frameworkers believe that man has been on this earth for roughly 6,000 years, that the flood happened roughly 4,200 years ago, that mankind coalesced around Mesopotamia to rebel against the LORD God, that all other languages were instantaneously formed as a result of God's judgment, and that mankind coexisted, for a time, with giants (biblically speaking) and dragons (dinosaurs).

Because that version of world history isn't negotiable, and I would be willing to bet a few blue chips that YEC's are more faithful to that history as opposed to OE's and Framework folks. Of course I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. I think a lesson can be learned from that.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

As I intimated earlier, I'm curious whether Old Earthers and Frameworkers believe that man has been on this earth for roughly 6,000 years, that the flood happened roughly 4,200 years ago, that mankind coalesced around Mesopotamia to rebel against the LORD God, that all other languages were instantaneously formed as a result of God's judgment, and that mankind coexisted, for a time, with giants (biblically speaking) and dragons (dinosaurs).

Because that version of world history isn't negotiable, and I would be willing to bet a few blue chips that YEC's are more faithful to that history as opposed to OE's and Framework folks. Of course I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. I think a lesson can be learned from that.

I agree with all of those points except for the necessity of man co-existing with dinosaurs. The references to "dragon" could mean any number of current species, including crocodiles, alligators, and of course the Komodo Dragon. But otherwise I agree with all of those points, none of which contradict an OE Creation view at all.

 

[ChristianTrader]

This is no history in the church for OEC.

William Shedd notes that "respecting the length of the six creative days, speaking generally, for there was some difference of views, the patristic and medieval exegesis makes them to be long periods, not days of twenty-four hours. The latter interpretation has prevailed only in the modern church." (Dogmatic Theology, 1:474-76)

Then we have E. J. Young, who following O. T. Allis, wrote "But then there arises the question as to the length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like."

J. Gresham Machen: "It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time." (The Christian View of Man)

Neither Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, nor B. B. Warfield regarded the six 24 hour day view of creation as exegetically required by a careful reading of Genesis 1, and Warfield even allowed for evolution if memory serves me correctly.

I repeat myself, because OEC is not an issue of days it is an issue about years. For example, Augustine held to a non six day creation viewpoint but was still a YECer.

Next, you can't claim Hodge, Warfield, etc because they came along after the capitulation happened. Or you can claim them and then say that the position was basically invented with them.

CT

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

This is no history in the church for OEC. Why do you even look to history to in anyway justify it? Why not just say that your scientific knowledge leads you to the position and be done with it.

CT

CT, I'm not looking to church history to support my views. In fact, the opposite is true: YECers have made repeated posts claiming that virtually no one in church history believed in anything other than a 24-hr day view, and that's simply not the case. As has been shown, even members of the Westminster Assembly believed the days weren't exactly 24 hrs. I didn't bring up the historical church views, but the fact is theologians throughout the centuries are virtually split on the 24-hr day understanding of creation, including quite a few contemporary theologians widely admired on this forum.

As for basing my view of the Bible on science, it should never be so. The Bible is the source of truth, not science, history, or anything else. The Bible should inform our view of the world around us, not the other way around. However, science can certainly aid our understanding of Scripture. For example, the episode of Jacob and the speckled sheep is better understood with the current knowledge of Mendelian genetics. Mitochondrial genetics shows that humans all originated from a single woman (called "Mitochondrial Eve" ironically enough), who lived in the Mesopotamian region - clearly a scientific fact that strongly supports the Bible. In fact, your understanding of "day" in Genesis 1 is based on the scientific understanding that the Earth rotates every 23:56. So yes, the fact that overwhelming scientific evidence shows the earth is far older than 10,000 years does help our understanding of the Genesis 1 account. More often than not science clearly buttresses the claims of the Bible - including the Genesis 1 account.

 

[Ravens]

I agree with all of those points except for the necessity of man co-existing with dinosaurs. The references to "dragon" could mean any number of current species, including crocodiles, alligators, and of course the Komodo Dragon. But otherwise I agree with all of those points, none of which contradict an OE Creation view at all.

For clarity's sake, I wasn't saying that based on the A.V.'s use of the word "dragons". The coexistence is a necessary inference and consequence, unless you allow for animal death prior to the fall. I sometimes say "dragons" instead of "dinosaurs" simply because it often provides a helpful segue to discuss the issue with other people. They may find it silly, but they've probably never wrestled with why, in fact, every culture of the world has "cultural memory deposits" of a time when their ancestors interacted with large reptilian beasts.

 

[RamistThomist]

As I intimated earlier, I'm curious whether Old Earthers and Frameworkers believe that man has been on this earth for roughly 6,000 years, that the flood happened roughly 4,200 years ago, that mankind coalesced around Mesopotamia to rebel against the LORD God, that all other languages were instantaneously formed as a result of God's judgment, and that mankind coexisted, for a time, with giants (biblically speaking) and dragons (dinosaurs).

Because that version of world history isn't negotiable, and I would be willing to bet a few blue chips that YEC's are more faithful to that history as opposed to OE's and Framework folks. Of course I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. I think a lesson can be learned from that.

I agree with all of those points except for the necessity of man co-existing with dinosaurs. The references to "dragon" could mean any number of current species, including crocodiles, alligators, and of course the Komodo Dragon. But otherwise I agree with all of those points, none of which contradict an OE Creation view at all.

Was there death before the Fall?

In fact, your understanding of "day" in Genesis 1 is based on the scientific understanding that the Earth rotates every 23:56.

Not really, since the bible posits both "evening and morning" as time-referents for day.

 

[RamistThomist]

I agree with all of those points except for the necessity of man co-existing with dinosaurs. The references to "dragon" could mean any number of current species, including crocodiles, alligators, and of course the Komodo Dragon. But otherwise I agree with all of those points, none of which contradict an OE Creation view at all.

For clarity's sake, I wasn't saying that based on the A.V.'s use of the word "dragons". The coexistence is a necessary inference and consequence, unless you allow for animal death prior to the fall. I sometimes say "dragons" instead of "dinosaurs" simply because it often provides a helpful segue to discuss the issue with other people. They may find it silly, but they've probably never wrestled with why, in fact, every culture of the world has "cultural memory deposits" of a time when their ancestors interacted with large reptilian beasts.

Dragons are winged, scaly beasts that breathe fire. They are to be killed by knights and from whom we rescue princesses. They are not dinosaurs, crocodiles, or komodos.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Was there death before the Fall?

Not really, since the bible posits both "evening and morning" as time-referents for day.

Yes, there was clearly animal and plant death before the Fall, but obviously not human death. Plants had to die to feed the obligate herbivores. Animals had to die to feed the obligate carnivores.

 

[Ravens]

Dragons are winged, scaly beasts that breathe fire. They are to be killed by knights and from whom we rescue princesses. They are not dinosaurs, crocodiles, or komodos.

Well, granted, I am appropriating the word somewhat to my own designs, but I'm not so sure that, historically, all dragons were thought to have breathed fire. I know Beowulf's dragon did, but in other accounts it is notably absent, e.g. Fafnir. The "dragons" of China are slightly different than the "dragons" of Europe. At the end of the day, I do think some cultural additions were added on to the kernel of truth, and that some truth was lost. So I suppose I view worldwide "dragon" (quotation marks) legends and their relation to actual history in the same way that I view the Enuma Elish as a corruption of actual history.

 

[RamistThomist]

Was there death before the Fall?

Not really, since the bible posits both "evening and morning" as time-referents for day.

Yes, there was clearly animal and plant death before the Fall, but obviously not human death. Plants had to die to feed the obligate herbivores. Animals had to die to feed the obligate carnivores.

Can you prove that from Scripture?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Was there death before the Fall?

Not really, since the bible posits both "evening and morning" as time-referents for day.

Yes, there was clearly animal and plant death before the Fall, but obviously not human death. Plants had to die to feed the obligate herbivores. Animals had to die to feed the obligate carnivores.

Can you prove that from Scripture?

No. Can you prove otherwise from Scripture?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Death came through Adam's fall. Not "a form of death," but the death. All death. Whatever is biblically classified as death. Romans 5.

I would agree completely, but given the context of Romans 5 it's hard to apply that to all of nature - only mankind. Just to be clear, I believe human death came as a result of sin, which means that there was no human death before the Fall, and clearly Romans 5 is referring to physical and spiritual death, along with eternal death. However, Paul discusses Adam and his posterity specifically ("through one man sin entered the world"). Nowhere is the death of animals and plants implied.

I went back and referenced Calvin's commentary and MacAthur's commentary on Romans before posting this, and neither comment on death applying to anything other than humans. In fact, MacArthur notes that "world" specifically applies to the human realm.

So, clearly humans did not die before the Fall, but there is no reason to believe death did not occur in the plant and animal worlds.

 

[RamistThomist]

Death came through Adam's fall. Not "a form of death," but the death. All death. Whatever is biblically classified as death. Romans 5.

I would agree completely, but given the context of Romans 5 it's hard to apply that to all of nature - only mankind. Just to be clear, I believe human death came as a result of sin, which means that there was no human death before the Fall, and clearly Romans 5 is referring to physical and spiritual death, along with eternal death. However, Paul discusses Adam and his posterity specifically ("through one man sin entered the world"). Nowhere is the death of animals and plants implied.

I went back and referenced Calvin's commentary and MacAthur's commentary on Romans before posting this, and neither comment on death applying to anything other than humans. In fact, MacArthur notes that "world" specifically applies to the human realm.

So, clearly humans did not die before the Fall, but there is no reason to believe death did not occur in the plant and animal worlds.

You are positing death as an ontological necessity within God's creation. I don't see that kind of creation as "very good." But you could point out that nature demands death (animals eating each other, plants, etc). But this goes to show that you are reading post-fall scientific presuppositions back into the text.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I don't see that kind of creation as "very good."

Why not?

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't see that kind of creation as "very good."

Why not?

Death is an intrusion, not the norm.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I don't see that kind of creation as "very good."

Why not?

Death is an intrusion, not the norm.

Says who?

The problem is that you're imposing your view of what is "natural" and what is "very good" onto God. Why do you say the natural food chain that includes the death of plants and animals is an intrusion and not very good? Why would God think it is an intrusion? See, you're imposing your values onto God. I'm sure God is very pleased with the way He created spiders to spin their webs to catch their prey. Besides, to say there was no death before the Fall is to say God drastically re-ordered all of His creation after the Fall, which, while possible, just doesn't seem plausible. And what about the beasts of the field in Chapter 2? Did they just stand in the field and enjoy the sunshine, ignoring all that nice grass God created for them? And what did they do with their stomachs and intestines before the Fall?

Seems like an unnecessary stretch to say death didn't occur in the animal and plant worlds prior to sin.