Why I am now a Young-Earth Creationist

[Archlute]

When you use the criteria used above:

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

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

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

Joshua 10:12-13

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

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

CT

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

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

Thanks for pointing out my flaw.

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

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

CT

I doubt that.

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

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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

I do not believe in evolutionary theism.

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

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

choose wisely.


cheers

R

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

 

[JohnV]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sastark]

When you use the criteria used above:

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

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

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

Joshua 10:12-13

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

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

CT

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

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

Thanks for pointing out my flaw.

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

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

CT

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

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

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

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

 

[Archlute]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Confessor]

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

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

CT

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

 

[JohnV]

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

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

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

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

 

[ChristianTrader]

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

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

Thanks for pointing out my flaw.

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

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

CT

I doubt that.

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

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

CT

 

[sastark]

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

Can you define "dark ages"?

 

[JohnV]

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

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

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

 

[JohnV]

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

Can you define "dark ages"?

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

 

[sastark]

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

Can you define "dark ages"?

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

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

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