YEC Internal Disputes are Getting More Bizarre

[Anti-Babylon]

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4,7).

There seems to be various views of when angels were created, but I don't have time now to research it further. Some say day 1, some say before the start of this material physical earth creation, ie, before Genesis 1:1. The beginning being the start of the visible creation, but angels came before it.

If angels were here first, that affects what you think about time. They may be invisible, but that that does not make them outside time, any more than invisible radio waves are outside time. I'm not saying they are like the electromagnetic spectrum, I don't know what they are exactly, but they were created beings and we can assume if they had a beginning then they existed in time from the start.

Is there any strong Reformed position on when angels were created? Just curious, thanks. It sort of goes with the subject so I hope I am not digressing.

Little digressing, but happy to engage you and Steven @CovenantWord later on - especially if the internal YEC discussion dies a natural death here.

There is not a strong Reformed position on when angels were created outside of obvious restrictions given the verses you cited.

I do remember in Douglas Kelly's Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 in Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms, there was a long section of multiple pages on the creation of angels where he quoted historical Reformers on the timing of angelic creation. However, I cannot recall a single one and my copy is physical and at home right now while I am at work. I will be happy to summarize these quotes and Kelly's thoughts later when I can get to my copy.

 

[RamistThomist]

Little digressing, but happy to engage you and Steven @CovenantWord later on - especially if the internal YEC discussion dies a natural death here.

There is not a strong Reformed position on when angels were created outside of obvious restrictions given the verses you cited.

I do remember in Douglas Kelly's Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 in Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms, there was a long section of multiple pages on the creation of angels where he quoted historical Reformers on the timing of angelic creation. However, I cannot recall a single one and my copy is physical and at home right now while I am at work. I will be happy to summarize these quotes and Kelly's thoughts later when I can get to my copy.

Agreed. Ultimately, as long as angels aren't placed within the "Creator" side of the Creator-creature perspective, the Reformed, and the church in general, haven't given a definite view.

 

[CHSalzgeber]

I do not disagree with anything you said, particularly the leap of faith required in secular cosmology. You are not wrong.

When it comes to transitions within kinds, layers of the Earth etc, it is not necessarily about what God could have done, but what he did in fact do.

You may be right in that a spontaneous act of layering the earth is not misleading or unfair for some (those who already decided there cannot be a God for sin reasons which is a fair point to the other side, no doubt).

I think the question Coulson et al ask is why not create a hypothesis of literal differentiation and explore where it goes?

Far deeper than literal differentiation is the possibility of a new YEC paleontology allowing for transitions within kinds that have already been measured over decades that could help tremendously with reconciling the fossil record with Biblical timelines.

This question gives "traditional" YEC deep consternation to the point of calling Coulson et al "YEE" - for no good reason that I can see at all.

Sorry, can you be a bit more clear on what you mean by this part of your quote in bold? The way it's reading to me would be akin to having an unbelieving scientist and sommelier study (if it were possible) wine from the miracle of the wedding at Cana. This is something the Word instantaneously created which (granted it was out of water, and not out of nothing) would ordinarily take time to ferment and mature. If I'm reading this right, I'm not sure what the exercise would profit.

 

[alexmacarie]

If in eternity past God made a decree, there has always been a future.

Eternity is outside of time, is succession-less and and changeless, future can be only when there is a past and a succession of moments/events one after the other.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

Sorry, can you be a bit more clear on what you mean by this part of your quote in bold? The way it's reading to me would be akin to having an unbelieving scientist and sommelier study (if it were possible) wine from the miracle of the wedding at Cana. This is something the Word instantaneously created which (granted it was out of water, and not out of nothing) would ordinarily take time to ferment and mature. If I'm reading this right, I'm not sure what the exercise would profit.

I meant to write "literal differentiation" as "transitional fossils" in that sentence. The "traditionalist" YECs do not argue Coulson et al is "evolutionist" based on differentiation of layers of Earth but rather they use that argument for "new type of framework/gap theory".

Coulson et al is not advocating hypotheses regarding investigation on the lines of differentiation of layers but they are doing so on transitions in fossils.

 

[CHSalzgeber]

I meant to write "literal differentiation" as "transitional fossils" in that sentence. The "traditionalist" YECs do not argue Coulson et al is "evolutionist" based on differentiation of layers of Earth but rather they use that argument for "new type of framework/gap theory".

Coulson et al is not advocating hypotheses regarding investigation on the lines of differentiation of layers but they are doing so on transitions in fossils.

That is interesting. Variation within a kind (and the fossils that this produces) fits snugly within my worldview. They might take issue with the “transitional” wording. Tough to speak for folks I haven’t met or heard from on the issue.

 

[MyCrows]

I'm not sure this is accurate. Time is the succession of moments, from past to present to future. Before the creation of the universe there was no succession of moments, certainly no past or future.

We need to be careful not to confuse the decree with the execution of the decree.e God did not create in time. Time was concreated with the rest of creation. There has not always been a future. Time is part of creation and not eternal.

I'm pretty sure I agree with this statement, but do want to ask a clarifying question about the bit I put in bold: Time from this point on for us (as creatures in creation) is eternal (without end), is it not? The saints under the altar in Revelation 6:10 seem to experience time, etc.

What I'm trying to say is that time as we observe it is simply a reference point for measuring. God exists outside of our reference point, because our reference point is the beginning, the initial act of His creating.

Sorry for the confusing remark.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

That is interesting. Variation within a kind (and the fossils that this produces) fits snugly within my worldview. They might take issue with the “transitional” wording. Tough to speak for folks I haven’t met or heard from on the issue.

I asked Coulson for the "gap/framework" charges he said was in his video linked to the differentiation of layers. I cannot find those anywhere (at least on AiG but I haven't looked at ICR who is also pretty mad at dynamic process types).

But as to "evolutionist" charges, AiG has devoted an entire category and weekly updated articles with no cited author:

Should Biblical Creation Become More Like Evolution?

There is a group within young-earth creationism that has subtly been trying to push models based on Genesis to be more like evolution in a number of ways.

answersingenesis.org

 

[CHSalzgeber]

What I'm trying to say is that time as we observe it is simply a reference point for measuring. God exists outside of our reference point, because our reference point is the beginning, the initial act of His creating.

Sorry for the confusing remark.

I'm not sure I agree with this for a few reasons:

1. We (you and I, as opposed to mankind) aren't measuring time from the beginning. We weren't there, and no one we know was either.
2. Mankind might've tried to work out time beginning from the beginning, but they've failed. Lots of societies keep time differently.
3. Both 1 and 2, in my opinion, don't account for spacetime. So we're talking about time, but in multiple different contexts.

 

[RamistThomist]

What I'm trying to say is that time as we observe it is simply a reference point for measuring. God exists outside of our reference point, because our reference point is the beginning, the initial act of His creating.

Sorry for the confusing remark.

God doesn't simply exist outside of our reference point. He exists outside of time proper.

 

[Eyedoc84]

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4,7).

There seems to be various views of when angels were created, but I don't have time now to research it further. Some say day 1, some say before the start of this material physical earth creation, ie, before Genesis 1:1. The beginning being the start of the visible creation, but angels came before it.

If angels were here first, that affects what you think about time. They may be invisible, but that that does not make them outside time, any more than invisible radio waves are outside time. I'm not saying they are like the electromagnetic spectrum, I don't know what they are exactly, but they were created beings and we can assume if they had a beginning then they existed in time from the start.

Is there any strong Reformed position on when angels were created? Just curious, thanks. It sort of goes with the subject so I hope I am not digressing.

While scripture doesn’t tell us, and Genesis 1 seems more concerned with the physical universe than the spiritual, I’m inclined to believe the angels come after Gen 1:1 due to the simple fact that it appears to communicate the idea that before creation, there was only God. I don’t think Job 38 requires angels to have been there before the foundations were laid, just that they were the earliest observers of what God had done.

 

[Eyedoc84]

As much as I love creationist hypotheses (I find Humphreys’ white hole cosmogony quite interesting), I think scientific investigation into absolute origins is a category error, if you will. Particularly post-Fall/post-Flood. You can’t “go back”, you can’t unscramble the egg. As it pertains to dating, there are plenty of indicators for a young earth, they just get rejected out of hand by those that already “know” the earth must be billions of years old. As for the indicators (mainly astrological and radiometric) that the earth is old, certain assumptions must be baked in to those equations. It’s not wrong, it’s just the nature of it, but often those assumptions are just so ingrained that they aren’t questioned or reported on. Even when trying to control for the constants assumed, which you can do with certain radiometric methods, you are only left with precision, not accuracy. Rocks don’t come with labels on them. You run the tests that will put you in the “right ballpark” based on other assumptions.

Supposedly, according to mainstream geology there’s no evidence of a global flood. Here’s where I see the problem: Everything you see is post-Flood on the biblical view. There’s no unflooded world to look at. No one knows what an unflooded world looks like to say whether there is or isn’t evidence for it. It must be taken “on faith” as it were for both the atheist who denies it and the Christian who affirms it. Any hypothesis of what a global flood should look like based on what we see/know now falls into hasty generalization fallacies, among other problems. Same thing goes for the Fall. Trying to scientifically investigate what things were like “back then” is an exercise in futility. We have the record of the One who was there (I’m hearing echos of Job).

 

[CovenantWord]

Literal time is not the governing parameter in this debate of whether the layers were created simultaneously or serially (I mean serially as argued within "dynamic-process" YEC not OEC). Each side of this internalized YEC debate agrees on the time frame.

The governing parameter is literal differentiation of materials. If God creates a mature creation spontaneously there should be none.

Okay, I seem to be having trouble nailing down the distinction of the theories involved. Let me try again:
Group 1: Holds that the creation days were measurably 24-hour days. Holds that every individual act of creation was instantaneous.
Group 2: Holds that the creation days were measurably 24-hour days. Holds that some acts of creation, such as the layering of the earth, may have occurred successively.
I don't see that the position of Group 1 necessarily excludes a result of a layered Earth, any more than, say, the differentiation of organs within animals excludes the possibility of their having been created instantaneously. Thus, the distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 is the velocity of creation, instantaneous vs. "progressive," to borrow your term. Velocity in this context is number of creation accomplishments divided by the time taken to accomplish them. Group 1 postulates that the time involved for each act of creation, within each day, is 0. To divide by 0 is to result in infinitely fast creation. Group 2 postulates that the denominator is, or might reasonably be, some number between 0 and 24. So the numerator (creation accomplishments) is the same for the two positions; but the denominator (time) differs, and thus the distinction between them is fundamentally chronological.
My suggestion to both positions is that velocity is an inappropriate assessment of the internal workings of creation, because the denominator, time, was not fixed and comprehensively measurable until the completion of creation. Building and establishing that fixity and measurability day by day was, indeed, an essential element of creation.
We do need, of course, to be circumspect in our conception of time involved in miracles. When Jesus healed the withered hand, did He restore the limb instantaneously, or did He cause the restorative growth to be more rapid than the human eye could observe, or did He stop time, heal the hand, and then restart time? We don't know; the passage does not specify.
Now, I will say that, compared to Group 1, the Group 2 position is attractive (albeit not thereby proven), because it is easier for humans to conceive of (such as to a secular scientist, as you mentioned). In fact, I would encourage you to take this feature a step further. There is no statement within the creation narrative that Adam was created mature, as is often claimed. God may have created him as an infant, and then caused him to grow into maturity, so that his body might undergo certain important preparatory changes, just as He caused the Earth to "grow" into its maturity.

 

[dhh712]

The governing parameter is literal differentiation of materials. If God creates a mature creation spontaneously there should be none.

Coulson et al would argue that - by certain observations - God leaves it fair for a reasonable non-believing human to analyze the layers of the earth and arrive at the conclusion that our planet has a core, mantle, and crust yet is still broken into three very distinctive parts revealing literal differentiation of both very-high temperature and gravitation.

If this differentiation were not literally true, then it would only "appear" to be true.

If the "traditional" YECs are correct, then it would seem their model of a "mature" creation is misleading and unfair to an unbelieving scientist who could argue God is "lying" in Genesis 1.

For this, my mind goes to 2Thess 2:11-12 where God says that He will send strong delusions to those who do not love the truth; of course, there are surely multiple things in view here. However, might it not be that those who want to take something of the world and hold it as a standard to judge the truth of God's word be a candidate for this kind of thing? For the Lord to send such people a "strong delusion" (--in this case, the scientific methods which make it seem so factual--according to such scientists-- that the world is much older than perhaps Genesis gives the idea that it is?) in light of their abandonment of God's word as the ultimate truth?

 

[Anti-Babylon]

For this, my mind goes to 2Thess 2:11-12 where God says that He will send strong delusions to those who do not love the truth; of course, there are surely multiple things in view here. However, might it not be that those who want to take something of the world and hold it as a standard to judge the truth of God's word be a candidate for this kind of thing? For the Lord to send such people a "strong delusion" (--in this case, the scientific methods which make it seem so factual--according to such scientists-- that the world is much older than perhaps Genesis gives the idea that it is?) in light of their abandonment of God's word as the ultimate truth?

Thank you for this, and I love it. I would suggest a re-writing of the bolded to emphasis that science is logical and logic is an attribute of God reflecting His objective eternal nature and order. Scientific methods do not make long ages seem factual. Assumptions about time periods beyond direct observation have to be accepted outside of strict scientific methodology in order for this to be true.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

I don't see that the position of Group 1 necessarily excludes a result of a layered Earth, any more than, say, the differentiation of organs within animals excludes the possibility of their having been created instantaneously. Thus, the distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 is the velocity of creation, instantaneous vs. "progressive," to borrow your term. Velocity in this context is number of creation accomplishments divided by the time taken to accomplish them. Group 1 postulates that the time involved for each act of creation, within each day, is 0. To divide by 0 is to result in infinitely fast creation. Group 2 postulates that the denominator is, or might reasonably be, some number between 0 and 24. So the numerator (creation accomplishments) is the same for the two positions; but the denominator (time) differs, and thus the distinction between them is fundamentally chronological.

I like this line of thinking. I think you are really close here, yet it seems to me you still need to flip numerator and denominator. Groups 1 and 2 agree on the denominator is 24 (or sum to 24 in the case of Group 2). You say so yourself in the definition you give for Group 1. The number of acts within the numerator is changed. Group 1 says 1 act/24 hours for each day. Group 2 says X_initial act/[24 - t(X_initial)] + X_1/ [24- t(x_initial) - t(x_1)] .... for each day with the number of creative acts depending on the material and process needed for God to supernaturally bring about the created object(s) He wills.

My suggestion to both positions is that velocity is an inappropriate assessment of the internal workings of creation, because the denominator, time, was not fixed and comprehensively measurable until the completion of creation. Building and establishing that fixity and measurability day by day was, indeed, an essential element of creation.

1) As you can see, I did not agree that time was the distinguishing difference between Groups 1 and 2.
2) It is also important to understand that neither group sees this discussion as "an assessment of the internal workings of creation". Rather, an assessment of the by-products the Creator left for us to analyze and consider in the light of His Scriptures.

When Jesus healed the withered hand, did He restore the limb instantaneously, or did He cause the restorative growth to be more rapid than the human eye could observe, or did He stop time, heal the hand, and then restart time? We don't know; the passage does not specify.

Both groups agree that creation itself can only be known because God revealed himself as the Creator through nature's design and His Holy Word. Both groups agree that miracles are also beyond scientific inquiry.

the Group 2 position is attractive

Thanks; I try to keep my skin moisturized and go to the gym when I can.

In fact, I would encourage you to take this feature a step further. There is no statement within the creation narrative that Adam was created mature, as is often claimed.

This not only reveals you are still fixated on the time component, but this also neglects the historio-grammatical and exegetical constrictions that Group 2 is deeply committed to. It also neglects the philosophical errors (or at least concerns) that long ages or even a novel approach like uniformitarian-like "X-time" introduces as we understand those positions.

 

[CovenantWord]

Italics are from the Anti-Babylon post.

Groups 1 and 2 agree on the denominator is 24 (or sum to 24 in the case of Group 2). You say so yourself in the definition you give for Group 1. The number of acts within the numerator is changed. Group 1 says 1 act/24 hours for each day. Group 2 says X_initial act/[24 - t(X_initial)] + X_1/ [24- t(x_initial) - t(x_1)] .... for each day with the number of creative acts depending on the material and process needed for God to supernaturally bring about the created object(s) He wills.

I was unable to reconcile your description with your proposed formula. Let's try it with scenarios involving hypothetical numbers:
Setting: Day 1, nothingness.
A: 9 A.M.: Earth created in toto instantaneously; Light also created instantaneously.
B: 9 A.M.: Earth created in toto instantaneously; Noon: Light created instantaneously.
C: 9 A.M.: Earth core created instantaneously; 9:15: mantle created instantaneously; 9:30: crust created instantaneously; 9:45: hydrosphere created instantaneously. Noon: Light created instantaneously.
D: 9:00 - 9:15: Earth core formed over the time period; 9:15 - 9:30: mantle formed over the time period; 9:30 - 9:45: crust formed over time period; 9:45 - 10:00: hydrosphere formed over time period. Noon: Light formed instantaneously.
Do I understand correctly that Group 1 would accept Scenarios A and B as plausible, that is to say, not violating the parameters of their conception, but would bristle at C and especially D; and that Group 2 would find A and B as possible, but that C and D are preferable, in light of modern geological observations?

2) It is also important to understand that neither group sees this discussion as "an assessment of the internal workings of creation".

The insistence on 24-hours is a rather strong statement about the internal workings of creation, both directly and by implication.

This not only reveals you are still fixated on the time component,

This is a rather strange criticism to hear from a position that insists on a prevenient, ineluctable time extending over the creation week.

It also neglects the philosophical errors (or at least concerns) that long ages or even a novel approach like uniformitarian-like "X-time" introduces as we understand those positions.

Ah, but my position is not vulnerable to these weaknesses. If, as I posit, the Creator was in the process of bringing time incrementally into existence during the creation week (even as He was bringing the material world into existence incrementally), then long ages and uniformitarianism are logically precluded.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

Do I understand correctly that Group 1 would accept Scenarios A and B as plausible, that is to say, not violating the parameters of their conception, but would bristle at C and especially D; and that Group 2 would find A and B as possible, but that C and D are preferable, in light of modern geological observations?

Broadly speaking, I suppose. It is important to note the preference the "dynamic" YEC would have would still be to honor the attributes of God and His nature of "speaking" through the observations of natural history while fully agreeing with our "traditional" brothers as to the time of creation.

The insistence on 24-hours is a rather strong statement about the internal workings of creation, both directly and by implication.

Nah, it really isn't. The insistence on 24 hours is Biblical: historico-grammatical and exegetical. Nothing at all about that is linked to any scientific data - never mind the actual mechanics of God's creative power within each "yom". Not at all.

This not only reveals you are still fixated on the time component,

This is a rather strange criticism to hear from a position that insists on a prevenient, ineluctable time extending over the creation week.

Is it though? The discussion is on whether God is "speaking" through nature that He laid these things out one after another or if He "speaks" anything at all about the processes - instantaneous or otherwise - all within the six specified "yoms" of Genesis 1.

You are the only one here that maintains the meaning of "yom" itself has bearing on whether God created instantaneously or laid out materials according to the process that He decrees they will obey throughout that moment and moving forward.

OEC believes the Hebrew reading allows for alternatives to 24 hours and appeals to long ages allegedly evident in observation so God will do these processes in time periods that allow for clear "speaking" through nature to humanity with no potential deception. (some OEC not all)

YEC agrees with straightforward reading of the Hebrew in Genesis 1 and some believe God could do the process dynamically in 24 hours while some believe it cannot be proven so why grant He could create by process even if it is in 24 hours since it could lead to OEC (or worse).

No one in the debate between "traditionals" and "dynamics" are talking about what "yom" could mean because it has no relevance to whether God creates simultaneously or in stages connected to the normal nature of the materials He formed.

He could have done it all in stages from nothingness in six 24-hour days or 6 nanoseconds or 6 picoseconds.

Why do you think the agreement between the 2 YEC Groups on 24 hours is causing or at least partially fueling our conflict - or rather why is the agreement on 24 hours hindering our ability to resolve it?

You still have never clarified this. You only repeat it.

Ah, but my position is not vulnerable to these weaknesses.

1) Your position on "creation time" that is not "providential time" is still completely confusing. At this point in our discussion, it is too confusing to me to even see a specific weakness that can be expressed at all.

2) But what weaknesses in the YEC internal debate have you even revealed here? From the beginning I have owned my unintentional lack of clarity. I cannot be still unclear at this point?

From where I sit, you have not yet cleared up how the shared interpretation of "day" is contributing to the current conflict between these 2 YEC groups.

You keep repeating these things, but you have not yet explained these things.

 

[CovenantWord]

Italics are quotations from the most recent post of Anti-Babylon.

1) Your position on "creation time" that is not "providential time" is still completely confusing.

A providential day is the division of the diurnal cycle upon Earth into 24 units of the same length, commencing and ending at a point generally convenient to the adopting society. A providential day is also 7.942433849 * 10^14 vibrations of the Cessium-133 atom under suitable excitation, as adopted by international standards. A providential day is also the travel within a vacuum of a photon for 2.590206837 * 10^13 meters as commonly used by astronomy. Although differing in important respects, because applied in different situations, each of these "days" share three fundamental similarities: 1) They are all direct observations of physical motion. 2) They can all be divided into indefinitely small units which are objectively precisely the same, even if subjectively different. 3) They can be projected indefinitely into the future without fear of contradiction or embarrassment, because of time's predictable orderliness. (Theologically, the confidence in such projection may very well cease at the Second Coming.)

In Creation Day 1, time was the interaction of light and darkness, Day and Night. Time was also evening and morning of the first day. Time was, to that extent, less chaotic than it was at the beginning. In Creation Day 2, time was evening and morning also. Notice that this was not the evening and morning of the first day, but a new creation, specific to the second day and mutually supportive of the earlier morning-and-evening creation. In other words, God did not create morning and evening as a general concept applicable to any day, but specifically within and to each day. In Creation Day 3, time was the life cycle of grasses, herbs, and fruit trees. Time was also the morning and evening of the third day. In Creation Day 4, time was further ordered by the ordination of the heavenly bodies to rule and separate the Day and the Night. Time also was the creation of evening and morning specific to the fourth day. In Creation Day 5, time was the life cycle of the creatures of the sea and of the air, and evening and morning of the fifth day. In Creation Day 6, time was the life cycle of the beasts of the land and the life of man, and the evening and morning specific to the sixth day. Additionally, the Creator introduced the eternity of time future as the span of the soul of man. In Creation Day 7, the Creator pronounced the creation of time to have been completed, so we are to understand that the orderliness carefully and successively built into time during the creation week was to serve as a permanent model for providential time. This model was so important that it served as the justification for the Fourth Commandment, inscribed into the unchanging moral law.

2) What weaknesses have you even revealed here? From the beginning I have owned my unintentional lack of clarity.

I did not intimate that the six 24-hour day position was subject to the weakness of misinterpretation of Earth ages and uninterrupted uniformitarianism, but since you have raised the possibility, it may be interesting to pursue. I do not suggest that this doctrine is thus vulnerable, because of the specification of only six days. This is good, of course. However, I do note that the 24-hour part of it, considered by itself alone, is so vulnerable. This is especially true in light of the fact that this position is a bit vague on when and how the 24-hour schedule commenced. This leads to a conscious or unconscious tendency to extend this conception of time into the indefinite past (eons and uniformitarianism), but it also does not clarify that time was not coexistent with God in eternity past. Please note that I am not accusing the holders of this position of advocating or even holding any such heresy; I am merely pointing out that the preexistent 24-hour view of time is logically vulnerable at this juncture. I am also uneasy that the unchanging 24-hour essentially expunges the description of the creation of time from the creation narrative. I find this absence unlikely in light of the importance of orderly time in the life of man and of the essential historicity of the redemption narrative throughout Scripture.

I believe that the reason the 24-hour view is held by many Christians with such tenacity is that it forms a palisade against the encroachments of a Deistic view of providential Earth history and of macroevolution. When I hear this view defended these issues seem invariably to make an early entrance. This is good, of course, and the view is to be commended for taking such a stand. However, my view is that time was not completed in its comprehensive, orderly fullness until coincident with the completion of the fullness of the material universe. This precludes these two secular claims, because time cannot be extended prior to having been completed.

From where I sit, you have not yet cleared up how the shared interpretation of "day" is contributing to the current conflict between these 2 YEC groups.

My original hypothesis was that an unnecessarily rigid view of the schedule of creation interfered with a fuller view of crucial issues such as instantaneous vs. successive creation. However, since you decline to specify the relationship of your view of successive creation within the overarching 24-hour view, I withdraw my suggestion.

One of the reasons I do not hold to the 24-hour view is that it doesn't seem to aid a fuller understanding of creation.

 

[CHSalzgeber]

Italics are quotations from the most recent post of Anti-Babylon.

1) Your position on "creation time" that is not "providential time" is still completely confusing.

A providential day is the division of the diurnal cycle upon Earth into 24 units of the same length, commencing and ending at a point generally convenient to the adopting society. A providential day is also 7.942433849 * 10^14 vibrations of the Cessium-133 atom under suitable excitation, as adopted by international standards. A providential day is also the travel within a vacuum of a photon for 2.590206837 * 10^13 meters as commonly used by astronomy. Although differing in important respects, because applied in different situations, each of these "days" share three fundamental similarities: 1) They are all direct observations of physical motion. 2) They can all be divided into indefinitely small units which are objectively precisely the same, even if subjectively different. 3) They can be projected indefinitely into the future without fear of contradiction or embarrassment, because of time's predictable orderliness. (Theologically, the confidence in such projection may very well cease at the Second Coming.)

In Creation Day 1, time was the interaction of light and darkness, Day and Night. Time was also evening and morning of the first day. Time was, to that extent, less chaotic than it was at the beginning. In Creation Day 2, time was evening and morning also. Notice that this was not the evening and morning of the first day, but a new creation, specific to the second day and mutually supportive of the earlier morning-and-evening creation. In other words, God did not create morning and evening as a general concept applicable to any day, but specifically within and to each day. In Creation Day 3, time was the life cycle of grasses, herbs, and fruit trees. Time was also the morning and evening of the third day. In Creation Day 4, time was further ordered by the ordination of the heavenly bodies to rule and separate the Day and the Night. Time also was the creation of evening and morning specific to the fourth day. In Creation Day 5, time was the life cycle of the creatures of the sea and of the air, and evening and morning of the fifth day. In Creation Day 6, time was the life cycle of the beasts of the land and the life of man, and the evening and morning specific to the sixth day. Additionally, the Creator introduced the eternity of time future as the span of the soul of man. In Creation Day 7, the Creator pronounced the creation of time to have been completed, so we are to understand that the orderliness carefully and successively built into time during the creation week was to serve as a permanent model for providential time. This model was so important that it served as the justification for the Fourth Commandment, inscribed into the unchanging moral law.

2) What weaknesses have you even revealed here? From the beginning I have owned my unintentional lack of clarity.

I did not intimate that the six 24-hour day position was subject to the weakness of misinterpretation of Earth ages and uninterrupted uniformitarianism, but since you have raised the possibility, it may be interesting to pursue. I do not suggest that this doctrine is thus vulnerable, because of the specification of only six days. This is good, of course. However, I do note that the 24-hour part of it, considered by itself alone, is so vulnerable. This is especially true in light of the fact that this position is a bit vague on when and how the 24-hour schedule commenced. This leads to a conscious or unconscious tendency to extend this conception of time into the indefinite past (eons and uniformitarianism), but it also does not clarify that time was not coexistent with God in eternity past. Please note that I am not accusing the holders of this position of advocating or even holding any such heresy; I am merely pointing out that the preexistent 24-hour view of time is logically vulnerable at this juncture. I am also uneasy that the unchanging 24-hour essentially expunges the description of the creation of time from the creation narrative. I find this absence unlikely in light of the importance of orderly time in the life of man and of the essential historicity of the redemption narrative throughout Scripture.

I believe that the reason the 24-hour view is held by many Christians with such tenacity is that it forms a palisade against the encroachments of a Deistic view of providential Earth history and of macroevolution. When I hear this view defended these issues seem invariably to make an early entrance. This is good, of course, and the view is to be commended for taking such a stand. However, my view is that time was not completed in its comprehensive, orderly fullness until coincident with the completion of the fullness of the material universe. This precludes these two secular claims, because time cannot be extended prior to having been completed.

From where I sit, you have not yet cleared up how the shared interpretation of "day" is contributing to the current conflict between these 2 YEC groups.

My original hypothesis was that an unnecessarily rigid view of the schedule of creation interfered with a fuller view of crucial issues such as instantaneous vs. successive creation. However, since you decline to specify the relationship of your view of successive creation within the overarching 24-hour view, I withdraw my suggestion.

One of the reasons I do not hold to the 24-hour view is that it doesn't seem to aid a fuller understanding of creation.

Don’t gnostics claim to want a fuller understanding? Should we really be prying into this? Is God glorified in it?

I suppose I’m failing to see the fruit in going beyond what was written in Genesis in light of Deuteronomy 29:29 in the quest for a “fuller understanding.”

 

[Anti-Babylon]

a conscious or unconscious tendency to extend this conception of time into the indefinite past (eons and uniformitarianism), but it also does not clarify that time was not coexistent with God in eternity past.

Utterly false claim against YEC. I know you qualify it by adding:

I am not accusing the holders of this position of advocating or even holding any such heresy

but yet you go on:

I am merely pointing out that the preexistent 24-hour view of time is logically vulnerable at this juncture.

But how so? Am I just supposed to assume as you do that:

the unchanging 24-hour essentially expunges the description of the creation of time from the creation narrative.

No it doesn't. Citations needed.

Of course, by "creation of time" I take it you specifically mean your hypothesis as to creation "days" being tied to "life cycles" of the constituent materials created by God in those days. We are not "expunging the description of the creation of time" from Genesis. We are interpreting "day" and "morning" and "evening" according to principles of responsible hermeneutics in good faith. This is the direct opposite of "expunging" or ignoring creation time.

Forgive me, but you seem to be adding to the Scriptures your own idea and then criticizing other viewpoints for being "vulnerable" to errors of your own imagining such as "not accounting for time being created" and "not fully acknowledging time began and was not coexistent with God".

Again, these are false charges against YEC.

These claims also have nothing to do with the current internal debate.

As I suspected, you just seem to want to fight YEC and contribute nothing to the original internal debate as I read you here.

it forms a palisade against the encroachments of a Deistic view of providential Earth history and of macroevolution.

24 hours did not historically arrive post-Darwin nor even post-Deism. This is factually incorrect.

When I hear this view defended these issues seem invariably to make an early entrance.

This is not because the view was constructed to debunk Darwinianism or Deism. That was an error on your end in my view. Those issues do invariably make an early entrance however simply due to the proliferation of Darwinianism in the modern day culture and education system.

But thanks for acknowledging we are at least on the right side of this particular issue. I reciprocate gratitude towards your view on this front as well.

However, my view is that time was not completed in its comprehensive, orderly fullness until coincident with the completion of the fullness of the material universe.

Biblical evidence please. I mean full Hebrew syntax and supporting verses that create a possible consistent view of special creation that does justice to the inspired language used in Genesis including "day", "morning" and "evening" but also allows for "morning" and "evening" to be specifically defined by the materials created within the "day" as opposed to an objective understanding of the normal use of "morning" and "evening".

This precludes these two secular claims, because time cannot be extended prior to having been completed.

Most within these two secular claims do not believe time is eternal either - just an aside there. Exceptions would include Roger Penrose and also a handful of secular physicists who deny time altogether.

However, since you decline to specify the relationship of your view of successive creation within the overarching 24-hour view

I have specified it Biblically by historico-grammatical and exegetical hermeneutics normatively applied to the text by YEC that you can find anywhere here or on the Internet abroad.

That is where I start and that is the ultimate standard by which I view creation: God's word; not my ideas.

God has hidden the mechanics of creation so that science is unable to directly or indirectly observe or measure the creation of all things - including creation of time. This leads me and you and anyone else with intellectual honesty to His Word alone.

If you expect more specifications, you need to look beyond all of YEC and mostly all of OEC for that matter.

Only theistic evolutionists and secularists speculate more deeply than that.

 

[CovenantWord]

@Anti-Babylon: Thank you for the discussion. I now have a more detailed understanding of the 24-hour position and a richer gratitude for the splendid work of creation.

Peace.