Young Earth vs Old Earth

[Free Christian]

Historically speaking the Jews themselves have always believed Genesis to be literal. And it was to them whom the oracles of God were committed! I read enough of JS's article to know its the same type of reasoning as I was shown by the RC's on that other forum. I do understand his position, I had that many conversations on that forum where it was the same and it doesnt wash. I wonder who these people are who understood, historically, this interpretation of Genesis as being correct? What background are they from if you could tell me please?

 

[GoodTreeMinistries.com]

I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.

Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?

Here is a short clip from John MacArthur on proof of a young Earth in Science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9qc0wL9R0o

 

[Tyrese]

I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.

Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?

Well we know your not using the bible. If your not "caving to science", what are you doing?

Very unkind brother.

Wait, which part? My point is that you can't read Genesis and automatically believe it teaches the old earth view. At face value it's to be understood literally. If you dont interpret the first few chapters of Genesis literally, then you have to get answers elsewhere. Do you disagree? That's why I asked what exactly are you guys doing? I see the articles being posted and they don't represent what God has said. They seem to be scientific explanations (albeit explanations by Christians), and not the childlike faith that God requires. I think someone else rightly pointed out how some people who hold the old earth view have a mild case of martyr complex. In no way was I trying to offend you brother. Ask me what I mean and I will be happy to clarify my comments. Feel free to PM me.

 

[GoodTreeMinistries.com]

I would refer you to this article on the subject.

Science, the Bible, and the Promised Land | Desiring God

Ok after reading this article I do not agree with this idea from Dr. John Sailhamer on the Old Earth. Normal reading of Genesis 1:1 to 1:2 seems to be the same process to me. With his theory it could still be a young Earth even since no time can be certain only guessed. I do however understand your side a little better now. I respect the ministry of Desiring God and that was the main reason I read the article. I agree with a lot of things from their ministry but as to Creation and gifts of the Spirit I believe they are wrong. I thank you for the article and agree with another person who posted this seems like the Gap Theroy.

 

[Phil D.]

Regardless if you and I may disagree with Sailhamer's conclusions, for the sake of honesty and accuracy it should be acknowledged that he does in fact take an exegetical, and not an eisigetical approach in deriving his arguments. That is, his method falls within the bounds of historical-grammatical interpretation, as he examines the original language and seeks to harmonize his understanding of it with the whole of Scripture. Nor is it correct to say, as some imply here, that he reads Genesis in a non-literal fashion. Rather, he has a different understanding of its scope and intent.

As such his does constitute an opposing view per the stated criteria of the OP.

 

[au5t1n]

In the article, it is stated that when heaven and earth occur together as "heaven and earth," the reference is to the totality of God's creation, not just the promised land. But Exodus 20:11 says, "For in six days God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." Sailhamer would have us read this as, "For in six days God prepared the promised land," even though it has already been admitted that "heaven and earth" means the totality of God's creation. This view is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I said that an interpretation of Genesis 1 may reflect great learning indeed, but be so convoluted that the interpreter is up in the exegetical clouds, his feet having lost all contact with the exegetical ground.

 

[dcantrell2009]

I cannot hold to a young earth for the simple reason that everything was created in an operative state, which means it was fully developed. Young earth science is counter-productive. I expect science to show evidence of age.

Rev. Winzer,
I would like to read more about what you are saying here. Do you perhaps have a link to an essay or a previous discussion?

 

[kvanlaan]

Wow - didn't expect to see what I see here. But as a YEC guy, I think it is very simple and without the need for new theories and scientific gymnastics. There are six ordinal 'yom' designations in the process of creation. There is a further 'yom' designation in Gen 2:4, but it is a be-yom ('in the day of') and not a simple day.

I need no scientific support for it. For those that do, I want scientific support for a man three days dead to come back to life.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

*Moderation*

This thread seems to be generating more heat than light. Time to shut it down.