PDA

View Full Version : Geisler on inerrancy and age of earth



Kbertsche
03-04-2014, 01:00 PM
Dr. Norman Geisler recently wrote an excellent article: "Does believing in inerrancy require one to believe in young earth creationism?"
http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/DoesInerrancyRequireBelieveInYoungEarth.htm

Here is his conclusion:

After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.* (3) *It is not a condition of salvation.* (4) *It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming.* As Repertus Meldenius (d. 1651) put it: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” And by all counts, the age of the earth is not one of the essentials of the Christian Faith.


(Predictably, YECs responded with an ad hominem attack: "The ultimate motivation of this prominent theologian?"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/14/motivation-prominent-theologian
This elicited a pointed response from Dr. Geisler: " A response to Ken Ham and AiG..."
http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/ResponseToKenHamAndAIG.htm)

Cow Poke
03-04-2014, 04:17 PM
I agree with Geisler's points numbered 1, 3, 5, and 7, along with the even numbered ones.

Jedidiah
03-04-2014, 06:17 PM
I find it interesting that Gleason Archer stated that you can have either inerrancy or a young earth, not both.

Raphael
03-04-2014, 07:44 PM
To repeat KG: "So Geisler allows an alternative reading to the traditional reading of Genesis, but he tried to destroy the career of Michael Licona for trying to do the same with Matthew 27."


Note: I am a YEC who has no problems with what Geisler said here, I've said it myself a few times.....but he's letting his hypocrisy show.

Kbertsche
03-04-2014, 09:12 PM
To repeat KG: "So Geisler allows an alternative reading to the traditional reading of Genesis, but he tried to destroy the career of Michael Licona for trying to do the same with Matthew 27."


Note: I am a YEC who has no problems with what Geisler said here, I've said it myself a few times.....but he's letting his hypocrisy show.
If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

Paprika
03-04-2014, 09:32 PM
If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

Utter bosh which conflates natural facts with revelation through nature.

Chrawnus
03-04-2014, 11:31 PM
If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).


Seems to me like Geisler thinks the ICBI statements should be included in the holy Scriptures. :shrug:

Cerebrum123
03-05-2014, 07:04 AM
If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).


He's missing two important facts here. Michael Licona* does not "dehistoricize" the Gospels, and that modern science is not "general revelation". General revelation is what people throughout all time would have available to them.

*I'll have to look for it, but he explicitly denies this accusation, and goes into why this is so.

Kbertsche
03-05-2014, 08:08 AM
Seems to me like Geisler thinks the ICBI statements should be included in the holy Scriptures. :shrug:
No, but affirmation of the ICBI statements IS a requirement for membership in the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) and for teaching positions at some Christian colleges and seminaries.

Raphael
03-05-2014, 12:14 PM
If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

I don't agree with him here.

He is saying it's ok for some to regard The first 5 chapters of Genesis as allegory and/or poetry, which are "generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual". But he then turns around and says it's not ok for Licona to look at exactly what category of text the Gospels are.
He is being wildly inconsistent saying that we can allow outside [extra-biblical] influences to take priority over our interpretation of Genesis, and at the same time saying we can't with regards to Matthew's narrative of the crucifixion.

Kbertsche
03-05-2014, 07:36 PM
I don't agree with him here.

He is saying it's ok for some to regard The first 5 chapters of Genesis as allegory and/or poetry, which are "generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual". But he then turns around and says it's not ok for Licona to look at exactly what category of text the Gospels are.
He is being wildly inconsistent saying that we can allow outside [extra-biblical] influences to take priority over our interpretation of Genesis, and at the same time saying we can't with regards to Matthew's narrative of the crucifixion.
Where does Geisler say or imply that "it's ok for some to regard The first 5 chapters of Genesis as allegory and/or poetry"? I think Geisler has been pretty clear that he views Gen 1-11 as "biblical narratives which present themselves as factual" and that they are history, not myth.

E.g. see Geisler's commentary (http://www.isca-apologetics.org/sites/default/files/Explaining%20Biblical%20Inerrancy.pdf) on the ICBI "Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics", article 22:

ARTICLE XXII: GENESIS 1-11 AS FACTUAL
WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the “literal” hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question. The result was a recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they are about space-time events which actually happened as re- ported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV).

The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term “creation” was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.

Darth Xena
03-05-2014, 07:57 PM
Special pleading. Licona's whole point was that the narrative wasn't intended to literally historically factual. There is no difference. I have nearly lost all respect for Geisler. His reasoning lately is atrocious to match his atrocious excuse sheet for Ergun Caner.

manalive883
04-08-2014, 04:37 PM
I find it interesting that Gleason Archer stated that you can have either inerrancy or a young earth, not both.

I believe this is because Gleason Archer thought that the Bible exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 unambiguously points to a young earth and not an old earth. I would have to agree with him on this point. The Institute of Creation Research gives 15 excellent reasons why biblical exegesis points to a young earth and why the 6 days of creation were 24 hour periods: http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-evolution-day-age-theory/ I think it comes down to whether you feel compelled to follow the latest fashions of provincial science or hold to a sola scriptura theology.

Also, there is solid scientific reasons for believing in a young earth as well which Dr. Sarfati points out in Chapter 8 of his book Refuting Evolution which is online: http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth

Jedidiah
04-08-2014, 06:13 PM
I believe this is because Gleason Archer thought that the Bible exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 unambiguously points to a young earth and not an old earth. I would have to agree with him on this point. The Institute of Creation Research gives 15 excellent reasons why biblical exegesis points to a young earth and why the 6 days of creation were 24 hour periods: http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-evolution-day-age-theory/ I think it comes down to whether you feel compelled to follow the latest fashions of provincial science or hold to a sola scriptura theology. [/url]

I am not sure what you see as indicating that Archer saw the Genesis account as pointing to a young earth. That goes contrary to what he seems to have believed. On the contrary, Archer seemed to find problems within scripture in regard to a Young Earth. This led him to an Old Earth interpretation which allowed him to retain Biblical inerrancy.

Archer: "By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days." (A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science)

Your ICR link is completely wrong in, painting Old Earth as equal to TE.

Old Earth Creationism is distinct from TE in several ways.
First - We believe that God created Adam out of the dust of the ground and Eve out of Adam’s side as well as the Genesis account states. We do not accept claim of Darwin evolution that random mutation and natural selection can adequately account for the complexity of life. God's fiat action was required. We differ with TE in that we do not see God using evolution as a tool, rather He created by His will.

klaus54
04-13-2014, 07:21 AM
I believe this is because Gleason Archer thought that the Bible exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 unambiguously points to a young earth and not an old earth. I would have to agree with him on this point. The Institute of Creation Research gives 15 excellent reasons why biblical exegesis points to a young earth and why the 6 days of creation were 24 hour periods: http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-evolution-day-age-theory/ I think it comes down to whether you feel compelled to follow the latest fashions of provincial science or hold to a sola scriptura theology.

Also, there is solid scientific reasons for believing in a young earth as well which Dr. Sarfati points out in Chapter 8 of his book Refuting Evolution which is online: http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth

"Provincial science" -- do tell?

K54

ONLY YEC's and OEC's are allowed to post in this section. Please do not post here again.

37818
12-26-2014, 03:59 PM
No, but affirmation of the ICBI statements IS a requirement for membership in the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) and for teaching positions at some Christian colleges and seminaries.Can you cite one point of ICBI statement which is NOT truthful?

I believe in OEC (Genesis 1:1) and a type of YEC (Genesis 1:2-31). Dr. Henry Morris founder ICR called my view of the literal 6 days, to my face, evolution.

Kbertsche
01-01-2015, 01:15 PM
Can you cite one point of ICBI statement which is NOT truthful?

I believe in OEC (Genesis 1:1) and a type of YEC (Genesis 1:2-31). Dr. Henry Morris founder ICR called my view of the literal 6 days, to my face, evolution.
I agree with and affirm the ICBI statements. I was not trying to cast doubt on their veracity, but merely to agree with chrawnus that the ICBI is not divinely-inspired Scripture.

Adrift
01-01-2015, 01:46 PM
I don't agree with him here.

He is saying it's ok for some to regard The first 5 chapters of Genesis as allegory and/or poetry, which are "generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual". But he then turns around and says it's not ok for Licona to look at exactly what category of text the Gospels are.
He is being wildly inconsistent saying that we can allow outside [extra-biblical] influences to take priority over our interpretation of Genesis, and at the same time saying we can't with regards to Matthew's narrative of the crucifixion.

I don't know why people keep forgetting this, but there are non-YEC literalist interpretations of the Genesis narrative. Historical Creationism, and the Gap Theory for instance.

Jedidiah
01-01-2015, 01:53 PM
And progressive creationism.

Jedidiah
01-01-2015, 01:56 PM
I don't know why people keep forgetting this, but there are non-YEC literalist interpretations of the Genesis narrative. Historical Creationism, and the Gap Theory for instance.

Can you briefly describe for me "Historical Creationism?" As an OEC I fall under Progressive Creationism, and affirm a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Adrift
01-01-2015, 01:59 PM
And progressive creationism.

Is that the Day-Age view?

Adrift
01-01-2015, 02:06 PM
Can you briefly describe for me "Historical Creationism?" As an OEC I fall under Progressive Creationism, and affirm a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Sure. Historical Creationism is basically the view that the entire cosmos was created in verse 1 at an indeterminate period of time (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Heavens and earth being a merism (a figure of speech) for the entire cosmos). The rest of the narrative isn't really describing new creative acts, so much as laying out God's preparation of the Promised Land which is the focus of the Pentateuch. This is developed in OT scholar John Sailhamer's book Genesis Unbound, and a good summary of the view can be found at John Piper's website here, http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land

Its the view that I currently lean towards, especially since it seems to accord well with John Walton's cosmic temple inauguration view.

37818
01-01-2015, 04:23 PM
Can you briefly describe for me "Historical Creationism?" As an OEC I fall under Progressive Creationism, and affirm a literal interpretation of Genesis.So you believe the 6 days of Genesis 1 are actual days? I believe so. While I believe Genesis there is a long period of time in verse 2 between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 that follows as 6 actual days. I reject the gap theory. That there was a first creation Genesis 1:1 the gap where the geological ages came about, then the 6 days. I believe the geological ages are explained as being the flood evidence.

I at one time believed in a day-age view Genesis 2:4. That the six days are called a day. Therefore the days were really ages of time.

Raphael
01-01-2015, 04:25 PM
I don't know why people keep forgetting this, but there are non-YEC literalist interpretations of the Genesis narrative. Historical Creationism, and the Gap Theory for instance.

First off, please excuse any typos, I blame autocorrect as I'm on my phone.

I'm not forgetting that. My problem isn't that there are alternate non-YEC literal interpretations, or even non-literal ones.
My problem is that Geisler is saying is fine for people to do it with Genesis, while he demonises Licona for looking into what genre the Gospels are.
I disagree with his comment that the situations are different.

Adrift
01-01-2015, 05:08 PM
First off, please excuse any typos, I blame autocorrect as I'm on my phone.

I'm not forgetting that. My problem isn't that there are alternate non-YEC literal interpretations, or even non-literal ones.
My problem is that Geisler is saying is fine for people to do it with Genesis, while he demonises Licona for looking into what genre the Gospels are.
I disagree with his comment that the situations are different.

Wouldn't the big difference between the two accounts be historicity? The OEC literalist believes that the Genesis narrative is an accurate historical account meant to be taken historically. They just interpret the meaning of the actual text in a different way than YECs. But Licona's proposition, that the Matthew account of the risen saints is apocalyptic symbolism, is non-historical. Isn't it? That seems like a significant difference to me.

That said, I think Geisler's dispute with Licona is misplaced. I don't agree with Licona's reading, but I don't think it necessarily bucks inerrantism.

Jedidiah
01-01-2015, 05:48 PM
So you believe the 6 days of Genesis 1 are actual days? I believe so. While I believe Genesis there is a long period of time in verse 2 between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 that follows as 6 actual days. I reject the gap theory. That there was a first creation Genesis 1:1 the gap where the geological ages came about, then the 6 days. I believe the geological ages are explained as being the flood evidence.

I at one time believed in a day-age view Genesis 2:4. That the six days are called a day. Therefore the days were really ages of time.

The term Progressive Creationism, as I understand it, is the same as the Day Age understanding. I read the text literally with a different understanding than you seem to. I am not sure why some insist that a literal understanding of Genesis requires 24 hour days. There are at least 3 literal meanings for yom. One is a 24 hour day, another is a long indefinite period of time, and the third is sunrise to sunset, the daylight hours.

37818
01-03-2015, 06:20 PM
The term Progressive Creationism, as I understand it, is the same as the Day Age understanding. I read the text literally with a different understanding than you seem to. I am not sure why some insist that a literal understanding of Genesis requires 24 hour days. There are at least 3 literal meanings for yom. One is a 24 hour day, another is a long indefinite period of time, and the third is sunrise to sunset, the daylight hours.Well why would the expression "the evening and the morning were the first day. were the . . . day" not make reference to one 24 hour earth day? Jewish days are reckoned from evening to evening. If metaphorical days, still, "the evening and the morning" referring to actual days would be part of the metaphor using the Hebrew word "day." Besides Genesis 2:4, can you give another example, where that term, that you know of, refers to a long indefinite period of time?

The current solar wind mean velocity, if shortly after our Sun became the star that it is. It would be about 4 days at 93 million miles to blow the debris past Earth to allow the Sun, Moon and stars to appear in the sky as distinct lights. A plausible explanation for day 4.

Jedidiah
01-03-2015, 08:58 PM
Well why would the expression "the evening and the morning were the first day. were the . . . day" not make reference to one 24 hour earth day? Jewish days are reckoned from evening to evening. If metaphorical days, still, "the evening and the morning" referring to actual days would be part of the metaphor using the Hebrew word "day." Besides Genesis 2:4, can you give another example, where that term, that you know of, refers to a long indefinite period of time?

As I wrote before:
I am not sure why some insist that a literal understanding of Genesis requires 24 hour days. There are at least 3 literal meanings for yom. One is a 24 hour day, another is a long indefinite period of time, and the third is sunrise to sunset, the daylight hours.That means that my understanding is also quite as literal as the 24 hour day understanding. The words for morning and evening are also the words for beginning and ending.

Quantum Weirdness
01-04-2015, 01:36 AM
As I wrote before:That means that my understanding is also quite as literal as the 24 hour day understanding. The words for morning and evening are also the words for beginning and ending.

Can you give me a source for this?

RumTumTugger
01-04-2015, 10:01 AM
And progressive creationism.

Progressive Creation? have not heard that term before can you give me a synopsis or a link to a the explanation a layman can understand?

Jedidiah
01-04-2015, 10:10 AM
Can you give me a source for this?

No, I can not. I got that information from Reasons To Believe. I understood the information to come from Gleason Archer, but I can not verify that. I will see what I can find later on.

Jedidiah
01-04-2015, 10:13 AM
Progressive Creation? have not heard that term before can you give me a synopsis or a link to a the explanation a layman can understand?

The days in Genesis were long undefined periods of time. What is normally seen as various evolved organisms are all individual fiat creations of God. I have asked in the past how one could tell the difference between this and evolution. Evolutionists have never answered me.

37818
01-04-2015, 04:08 PM
The flood theory of Geology is not taught much any where. Except some YEC such as ICR. The geological ages strata is the flood evidence. And how this evidence is interpreted and dated.

whag
03-05-2015, 06:37 PM
The days in Genesis were long undefined periods of time. What is normally seen as various evolved organisms are all individual fiat creations of God. I have asked in the past how one could tell the difference between this and evolution. Evolutionists have never answered me.

You haven't looked hard enough. Obviously the mechanism for change being established, the alternative view of species appearing from nothing over the coarse of 3billion years is more problematic -- there being zero evidence for that phenomenon and tons for dynamic change via genetics

This is instructive to me re: the Noah debate. Thanks.

This forum is not only restricted to theists only but you must also be a creationist to post here.