The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Re: Induction of evolution on Day/Age Creationists
by ccousine on Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:54 pm


I will grant you the debate is in the eye of the beholder, but in my humble opinion, Hovind mopped the floor with Ross. Ross' arguments weren't convincing to me in the slightest.

How would you explain Luke 3:23-38, with Genesis, Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4. These are quotes right from Jesus' mouth. This is where I really have trouble with OE creationists. I believe the Bible, until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong. If it is wrong, then the whole Bible for me comes into question. If that happens, then I will question my faith as a whole.

Thankfully, from my limited scientific knowledge (geography, physics and archaeology, University of Lethbridge), along with biblical texts, and the numerous holes (in my mind) found in OE arguements, there is only one real choice.

It has been brought up that this issue is just divisive and not important. While in the greatest scheme of things, it is not important, but how many people are not following Christ because they view the Bible as errant, as it apparently conflicts with that of "science"? Most of these people are in complete ignorance of the numerous problems with the science presented, and are unaware of the other options out there.

I don't care one iota about this arguement between dedicated and loving Christians, I love you all as a family of Christ, but I do care when "science" is being pushed down the throats of our children and adults that are not Christians. OE pushes this science out there.

This thread will be my response to ccousine from the original post "Induction of evolutionism on Day / Age Creationists". Since this topic did not focus on the actual discussion we were having, I thought it only proper to begin this new thread. I would love to see the comments from all who wish to engage.

-Mark

Below is my response to ccousine's assertions from the other thread...



I haven't talked origins here in while, so I might as well jump in...

To let everyone know where I'm coming from up front...
I was raised with YEC and was taught YEC in both High School and College. It was years later and after much Bible study that I realized that YEC is not taught in Scripture and is nothing more than a man made tradition that is adopted by a minority of Christians.

For me it all comes back to what Scripture says...
- the use of 'yom' in Gen 2:4 gives us insight as to how 'yom' is used within the immediate context of Gen 1 and 2.

Even the three passages you reference fail to support the YEC position
- Luke 3:23-38 explicitly shows that there are gaps in the Genesis geneologies (Compare Gen 10:24 with Luke 3:35-36)
- And the YEC understanding of 'beginning of creation' in Mark 10:6 comes into direct contradiction with the sequence of events given in Genesis 1. According to Genesis 1 Adam and Eve were created on day 6 (the last day of creation, not the beginning of creation).

Now I have no problem with a person saying they personally believe the earth is 6000 years old, I have a number of Christian brothers and sisters who believe that, and that's ok. However I take strong exception to those who claim that the Bible clearly teaches YEC. It doesn't... and those who claim it does are equating a man made YEC tradition with the authority of Scripture.

The real harm of equating the YEC tradition with the authority of Scripture is seen when people turn their back on the Gospel or shipwreck their faith because they actually do buy into the premise that Scripture is just as fallible as the man made YEC tradition.

Scripture does not explicitly teach YEC and we as Christians should try our best to avoid claiming Scripture says something that it doesn't.

In Christ

Now lets look at what you have proffered:

I do not know exactly what you are getting at with this first passage, but it basically is a genealogy of Jesus. I fully accept that it is, but I also recognize the way that genealogies were used in the context of Jewish culture. If your hope is to show a complete and specific lineage of Jesus, then I think you have to realize that the genealogies of scripture are not meant for that purpose. I think Dbowling showed this well in his last post. I think you should make the point clearly how you believe this impacts the discussion. I do not want to say your words for you. But to make sure, I have no issues with this passage as being literal in the context of how and why it was written.


These next two passages I wholeheartedly agree with. It fits my view perfectly since the “beginning” here is the entire creation period, which culminated in the creation of man. This does nothing more than show the uniqueness of man as being God’s purpose for creation. Also, the context of this was marriage and the unique relationship between men and women. Do you think Jesus was implying that God made man prior to the creation of the physical universe? I do not think that is your point, but it follows by the YE logic that that is what Jesus actually was saying.

(to be continued)

(From Previous)
A Little Commentary:
If I may say so, you need to do some independent research on this subject. You have given the quintessential talking points of AIG, but have not give a case for why they impact the discussion, much less a compelling case. If you care to develop these, then I think you should. I would like to see it.

I will tell you that I desperately wanted the YE position to be true when I started studying this issue. My hope was that if I could prove that the earth was only 10,000 years old; then I could have an airtight case against evolution. I think this is the subconscious desire of most YE adherents. As I studied the issue from all sides, I came to the conclusion that the YE position was simply a theologically concocted position that really had only merit when the biblical text was read in a specific way. Once I recognized that there are legitimate literal interpretations that give actually more clarity to the entire account of creation that is revealed through the entirety of scripture, I had no problem adopting an OE position.

I am not saying that the Bible is wrong. I am simply saying that your interpretation is potentially wrong. If the Bible were shown to be contradictory to what we observe in the natural revelation, I think it would not be worth looking at as a source of God's revelation either. I do not think this is the case. Nature consistently supports the Biblical accounts and sometimes forces us to modify our understanding of scripture. OE does not "push" errant science, it recognizes the validity of science as we are told to do in Psalm 19. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day by day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge...." We were given two revelations to compliment one another. I think sometimes the YE crowd gets so biblicentric that they replace "Sola Scriptura" with "Solo Scriptura".

One of the strongest arguments for my acceptance of OE is the idea of the Sabbath rest of God on the seventh day. Since the literal text omits a morning and evening from this day, I think it is legitimate to see that this seventh day has not ended. Hebrews 4 is a good passage to grapple with since it shows that God’s rest from this seventh day is what we are now in. If this was not a literal 24 hour day, then why should the other 6 days be considered as such. Please do not give the rational that "evening and morning show that these are 24 hour days". I showed where these were only indicators of the beginning and ending of time periods, whether they be 12 hours, 24 hours or any other time period that God chose.

I have heard many times that the issue is that “We must simply look at the scripture and believe what it says.” The issue here is not in “believing” what scripture says, but it is the idea of looking at the scriptures simplistically. Thankfully, looking at Genesis 1 in the YE context does not keep one from faith in Christ. However, if you make the case that other doctrines are suspect if you do not hold to this view, you are in danger of becoming trapped into believing that the only true faith in the doctrinal Christ of the Bible is through this YE framework. I do not believe in YE because I do not think that “six days of 24 hours in length” is what the text says. There is no justification for the necessity of this interpretation. You can hold to it, and I can respect that. But you have no authority to tell me it is a more accurate interpretation of scripture. Even Genesis 2 references the “days” of creation with the term “yom”.

For all of the talk about a slippery slope, you should document the areas where OE creationists have strayed from the doctrinal path. When you realize that we probably agree on 95%+ doctrinally, then this should relieve you of this overly sensitive position. Another text I would direct you to is Romans 14 since it talks about the weaker and stronger Christians. The one thing I would bring out to you is an understanding of who is considered mature in his faith – it is the one who does not saddle himself with legalistic restrictions on his faith. The mature brother is the one who does not legalistically eat only certain foods, but understands his freedom in Christ. He does not make mountains out of mole hills, but does not condemn those who believe they must.

A mature faith is one that is strong enough to take the evidence that we see in the general revelation (historical, scientific, and philosophical) and conform his view of his faith in a way that allows for a synergy of the two together. Only in this unified belief system can we have a truly robust faith that will impact our individual lives and subsequently our society.

-Mark

First, as stated before I am not a proponent of the YE position as stated by ccousine.

Markepp says,

After reading the Hebrews 4 passage I'm not sure what you are trying to say. This does not IMO prove that God's rest is more than a 24 hr period. It is saying that God's true rest did not come through Joshua, etc. If you have given irrefutable evidence that the creation period was not a literal 7 day period I would like a link to that reference. It seems to me that ccousine is not the only one stretching the Scripture a bit and being a bit too dogmatic.

I will once again say that the YE (earth is only 6 to 10 thousand years old) is IMO not Scripturally clear and thus, to me, a non issue. I have not however seen any clear evidence to exegetically remove credebility to a 7 day (24 hour day) creation. If you have that I would be interested in it.

Blessings,
Randy.

Randy,
I would say the point is that only through a specific reading of the text can the presupposition be made that the earth was made in 24 hour days. Because of this lack of clear evidence to a specific reading, there is no credibility in starting from that point. I do not believe I have to prove that the creation days were longer, I simplyt must put forth the evidence that it could be (from an exegetical stance). I beleive I have done this sufficiently.

I have no problem with someone thinking that the text says something specific, as long as they realize that it is a personal opinion and not an exclusive interpretation. When it becomes more than this, then it is problematic.

My point in the Hebrews passage is that God's rest, which began on the seventh day, is not complete. We are actually living in it currently.


The rest of God, which is the seventh day of creation, is obviously longer than 24 hours since it is still going on. This point is simply that the "yom" of the seventh day is longer than 24 hours, so why could the other six not be as well? My point on the "evening and morning" issue is that they are merely a distinction of time and since the seventh day is unbounded it is simply not finished, whereas the days of creation are (no matter how long they took).

You say that scripture is clear on the young age of the earth, but it is only clear if you eisegete the word day as having a 24 hour definition, which is needlessly restricting the meaning of the words in question. I contend that there is simply no justification for this.

Of course, when I came to the understanding that the text does not demand a 24 hour day, I was liberated to look at other evidence that would give indictations to the age of the earth. Since, from my view this does not go against scripture, it is perfectly legitimate. I understand that you cannot use this information, but that is because your view is that the text is clear. Both us believe that the scripture takes precedence. I just do not accept your interpretation.

Since the demand for proof rests in your corner since you want to restrict the text, I would graciuously entertain any evidence you have for your contention.

Blessings,
Mark

Let me expand a bit on what markepp said...

Here is the text of Hebrews 4:1-11 (NASB) with the appropriate verses highlighted

In Hebrews 4 the writer (and I believe Holy Spirit inspired writer) states that the people of God are able to enter the Sabbath rest which Hebrews 4:4 explicitly equates with Day 7 of Genesis 2. I think it is pretty clear from this passage that the writer of Hebrews believed that the Genesis 2 Day 7 was still taking place over a thousand years after Genesis was written.

If Day 7 was still occuring when Hebrews was written then that precludes Day 7 from describing a 24 hour period of time. As markepp points out this also explains why in Gen 2 Day 7 is not described as having an end (no 'evening and morning')

In Christ

Markepp & DBowling,



I have not said that scripture is clear on the young age of the earth. Again, I am not a proponent of the YE position!

I will review your arguments and reply when I get a new battery for my optical mouse. Wow this mouse being out is really annoying!!!

Blessings,
Randy

Randy,

There are just too many different people with different thoughts . I re-read yoiur original post and agree with you that this should be a non-issue. The problem, IMO, is that many proponents on the other side want to make it one. I am simply defending the position that I have come to as to its legitimacy. As I indicated previously, I have no desire to make others believe as I do, they can believe whatever they want about this issue. When they start telling me that the Bible clearly teaches something that it doesn't is where I have a rub.

I hope our discussion of the relevance of the Hebrews passage is clear. I think it is interesting that I have not heard any responses from ccousine and the others. I would really like to hear their response.

Good luck with your mouse.

-Mark

Just to throw in my 2 cents...

I'm a rare breed of individual, I believe in a literal 6 day creation HOWEVER I am an old earther hehehe

_________________
Jennifer Dent
Site Administrator

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Learning Environment
The Administrators Desk Blog

Jenn,

I assume you meant to say that you believe in six days of 24 hours in length. I only make this distinction because some people might think literal means only this position, whereas I believe my OE position is actually just as literal.

I would like to hear your thoughts on what you actually believe and where this belief comes from.

Indulge us if you will.

-Mark

I think an Old Earth position and six literal days of creation could be considered more literal than Young Earth as a view of Genesis 1.
Here it is with my notes in italics:


One might say, "but the scripture doesn't say 'billions of years passed,' '' to which an appropriate response is: "it also does not read as below"


Of course, it is best for people who want to stick with a literal 6 days of creation to stop reading at Chapter 1.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

First, I am not a proponent of the YE position.

I do however view that the 6-day creation (24-hr days) view is exegetically viable and, IMO, the more natural reading of the Hebrew text.

The translators of the NET Bible seem to agree with me in their notes for the text:



As noted above, the Hebrew word "yom" could be exegetically used to mean a "period" ot "time" as in Isaiah 61:12,

However, the overwhelming use of the word pertains to a period from sunrise to sunset.

I believe the argument regarding a conflict between Genisis 1 & 2 is errrant and does not pay attention to how Hebrew literature works. It is common for the overview to be stated first and then a return to the account to fill in pertinant details (such as the forming of Adam & Eve) later.

I will say that the "yom" referred to in Gn. 2:4 is referring to a time period and it is clear that it is applied to the "history" which preceeds it in the sentance structure. As in the Isaiah passage above the "yom" points to the "year" which preceeds it. So that the period of time which preceeds the "yom" determines the "yom" .

I do not agree with the interpretation that the Hebrews passage confirms in any way the idea that this was or is more than a day. In my view the Hebrews passage is distinguishing between a physical rest and the redemptive (spiritual) rest.

I guess I'm setting myself up for a full barrage of stuff and really don't mind the challange. I must, however, restate my position so that I'm not placed in with others with which I disagree.

I am not a young earth proponent. I believe this position misunderstands and mis-uses the geneologies within the Bible.

I do not believe that one must interpret the "yom" my way in order to be an "acceptable believer".

I do not believe that the ways we currently have to date the earth (carbon dating, etc.) are as reliable as we believe they are. IMO there are too many variables to deal with. (I am not dogmatic here because the field is well outside my area of understanding and expertise. This is merely my opinion!) IMHO I think the earth is older than what the general YE proponents say and I believe that it is younger than what the general OE proponents say. I'm somewhere in between and really not sure where. I really don't think it matters in either case!

I do accept the idea of micro-evolution as a possibility and think that it could better explain a less crowded Noah's ark.

I do not in any way accept macro-evolution.

Blessings,
Randy.

Randy,

I appreciate and respect your opinion. I think the main point of agreement that we would have is that this should not be an essential issue. It pains me greatly when people make it so. You are simply claiming a legitimate agnosticism towards the dating that science claims. I in no way condemn you for this. It is a legitimate and honest position.

As to the issue of the use of bounding and ordinals, I know of many Hebrew scholars that would counter the idea that "evening and morning" or "numbering" the days has anything to do with the actual length of the days themselves.

Their basic contention would be that the bounding is simply a distinguishing of the separate acts of creation from one another. This would be analagous to saying in the first day, month, year, period of time, etc. An important thing to note is that the third meaning of yom is a finite but undefined period of time. This seems to me to be saying that the creation of the heavens was completed before the creation of the plants, which was completed before the creation of the animals, which was completed before the creation of man, etc. Since these periods of time are distinguishable, then it is natural to see that they are numbered in order to show this flow.

You have actually found what I think is the most legitimate argument for a YE reading of the text in the understanding of the Sabbath. I am suprised that it has taken so long to come up. Without going into the full detail of discussing it, I will just say that the error from the YE side stems from a equating the Sabbath with a specific period of time. Similar to the Hebrews passage (a still continuing sabbath) there are different types of time periods associated with the Sabbath for man, land, debts, etc. The Sabbath was not meant to refer to a a 24 hour day, but rather a concept of working and resting to give the Lord glory. The one comment you made demonstrates this:



If you use subscribe to the YE framework (which I know you don't), you are disregarding this intrabiblical definition of day even as they see it.


Blessings to you,
Mark

Could you point out which portion of Hebrews 4 you understand as either distinguishing or differentiating between God's redemptive rest and God's Sabbath rest.

My reading of Hebrews 4 (and especially verses 4-6) indicates that the author is explicitly equating (not distinguishing between) God's redemptive rest and the Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2.

Heb 4:4-6 4 For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” 5 but to repeat the text cited earlier: “They will never enter my rest!” 6 Therefore it remains for some to enter it, yet those to whom it was previously proclaimed did not enter because of disobedience. Context (NET)

In Christ