The YEC time frame

[FreezBee]

Terry Mortenson has an interesting AiG article: Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp).

Mortenson even gives William Paley a whack for not using the Bible in his Natural Theology as a proof of God; heck, Paley wasn't even concerned with the age of the earth. Also the ID movement is accused of focusing too much on Darwin, because the roots of the evil are even before that; anything natural is bad, also natural theology.

Now, Luther was as biblical a literalist as any and he claimed that the sky was a solid dome, because the Bible says so, and he was against helio-centrism, because the Bible clearly states that the earth shall not be moved.

I do not know Terry Mortenson's view on these things; but it's interesting that both AiG and ICR literally manage to read a moving earth out of the Bible (the thing about the earth not being moved is interpreted as not being moved out of its orbit), and also they interpret the "raqiya", not as a dome, but as the expansion of the universe.

Now, the expansion of the universe is the odd thing out, since that's a very novel idea; but in general we must place the YEC time frame after Newton, whom the YECs generally endorse (although he was a Unitarian, but they don't tell that to anybody) and before William Paley; that is, basically somewhere in the 18th century - though a few novel ideas, such as the expansion of the universe, picked up from later times. Now, the expansion of the universe is a bit special, since apparently the purpose is to get rid of that old dome, so it doesn't change much.

This means that YECs (at least the AiG and ICR variety) mentally live around 250 years ago, so no wonder that communication with them can be difficult to say the least.


- FreezBee

[oxmixmudd]

Terry Mortenson has an interesting AiG article: Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp).

Mortenson even gives William Paley a whack for not using the Bible in his Natural Theology as a proof of God; heck, Paley wasn't even concerned with the age of the earth. Also the ID movement is accused of focusing too much on Darwin, because the roots of the evil are even before that; anything natural is bad, also natural theology.

Now, Luther was as biblical a literalist as any and he claimed that the sky was a solid dome, because the Bible says so, and he was against helio-centrism, because the Bible clearly states that the earth shall not be moved.

I do not know Terry Mortenson's view on these things; but it's interesting that both AiG and ICR literally manage to read a moving earth out of the Bible (the thing about the earth not being moved is interpreted as not being moved out of its orbit), and also they interpret the "raqiya", not as a dome, but as the expansion of the universe.

Now, the expansion of the universe is the odd thing out, since that's a very novel idea; but in general we must place the YEC time frame after Newton, whom the YECs generally endorse (although he was a Unitarian, but they don't tell that to anybody) and before William Paley; that is, basically somewhere in the 18th century - though a few novel ideas, such as the expansion of the universe, picked up from later times. Now, the expansion of the universe is a bit special, since apparently the purpose is to get rid of that old dome, so it doesn't change much.

This means that YECs (at least the AiG and ICR variety) mentally live around 250 years ago, so no wonder that communication with them can be difficult to say the least.


- FreezBee


I think the solid dome sky is very instructive. Genesis 1:6-8 really implies that, unless one looks beyond the literal text. Yes, there are 'other' ways of looking at those verses. But that is not 'the plain reading of the text'. I really wonder how that can be justified while simultaneously railing on OEC's and TE's for thinking the less common meaning of 'yom' might also apply. Especially since the only reason for accepting a non-dome sky is the extra-biblical scientific evidence we have amassed over the last 400 years - and with 'the expanding universe' only coming out of the scientific knowledge of the last 75 years (and the 'collapse' of the canopy theory)!!!

Jim

[NeilUnreal]

I also get upset when people wrongly re-interpret the canopy thing. Unless you read such passages as the ancients did, as implying a real dome of some celestial material, you miss a lot of the meaning and strength of the imagery.

For example, the passages in Genesis which describe waters over and under the sky, the windows of heaven being opened to release rain, phrases like "heaven that is over thy head shall be brass" in Deuteronomy, and the images in Revelation which portray a crystal sea forming the floor of heaven which is presumably the same crystal sea held back by the dome of our sky.

Of course, as denizen of the 20th century, these images do not convey a literal truth to me in the same way as they did for the ancients. However, if I try to force-fit such passages into my 20th century scientific understanding of the cosmos, I create a worse tradgedy by robbing the images of their spiritual and mythological messages. At worst, what the ancients were trying to tell me by using these images is watered down; at worst, I risk very bad misunderstandings.

So I think it's important to read such passages literally, yet in the context of understanding that it is an ancient literalism I am after, not a 20th century scientific literalism.

-Neil

[truthound]

It appears that the ancient Hebrews, much like many other people of the time, thought of the sky or heaven as being solid. Job 37:18 describes heaven as being a solid vault "hard as a molten mirror," with 22:14 stating that God walks on this vault. This belief is further supported by Prov. 8:27-29 which clearly states that God "made firm the skies above."

Here is a rough idea of how the ancient Hebrews viewed the Earth and the cosmos:

http://home.messiah.edu/~kbauer/bible/cosmos.gif

[FreezBee]

I think the solid dome sky is very instructive. Genesis 1:6-8 really implies that, unless one looks beyond the literal text. Yes, there are 'other' ways of looking at those verses. But that is not 'the plain reading of the text'.

Yes, I agree that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:6-8 does imply a solid dome, and to understand, why that was important we should not press our modern cosmology down over the text.


I really wonder how that can be justified while simultaneously railing on OEC's and TE's for thinking the less common meaning of 'yom' might also apply.

:lol: Yes, the YECs appear to be inconsistent here.


Especially since the only reason for accepting a non-dome sky is the extra-biblical scientific evidence we have amassed over the last 400 years - and with 'the expanding universe' only coming out of the scientific knowledge of the last 75 years (and the 'collapse' of the canopy theory)!!!

True, there was that canopy theory some time ago; but even the YECs don't believe in it anymore.


- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

I also get upset when people wrongly re-interpret the canopy thing. Unless you read such passages as the ancients did, as implying a real dome of some celestial material, you miss a lot of the meaning and strength of the imagery.

Ok, so we are at least three now :smile:


For example, the passages in Genesis which describe waters over and under the sky, the windows of heaven being opened to release rain, phrases like "heaven that is over thy head shall be brass" in Deuteronomy, and the images in Revelation which portray a crystal sea forming the floor of heaven which is presumably the same crystal sea held back by the dome of our sky.

Quite true - the YECs trying to adapt things to a more modern cosmology miss what it all originally meant.

I think the crystal sea could be the Milky Way, but I'm not sure. Anyway, it's also more important, I think, to undestand the poetic dimension, the way the ancients were seing the heavens. Would you agree?


Of course, as denizen of the 20th century, these images do not convey a literal truth to me in the same way as they did for the ancients. However, if I try to force-fit such passages into my 20th century scientific understanding of the cosmos, I create a worse tradgedy by robbing the images of their spiritual and mythological messages. At worst, what the ancients were trying to tell me by using these images is watered down; at worst, I risk very bad misunderstandings.

So I think it's important to read such passages literally, yet in the context of understanding that it is an ancient literalism I am after, not a 20th century scientific literalism.

I fully agree here (which should be clear from what I have written above) - to grasp the meaning of the biblical texts we shouldn't modernize them (sorry Glenn; but I really think we shouldn't)


- FreezBee

[NeilUnreal]

Anyway, it's also more important, I think, to undestand the poetic dimension, the way the ancients were seing the heavens. Would you agree?

Yes, I agree. In fact, this would be the most important aspect of the stories even if they were literally historically true.

I remember in third grade, we had a series of modules we studied about great American scientists and inventors. There were modules on Thomas Edison, George Washington Carver, Alexander Graham Bell, etc. Now, of course, part of the purpose was to teach us the actual historical facts behind these people. But the vastly more important purpose was to give us heroes of the right sort: intelligent, thoughtful, creative, persistent; so that by admiration of these heroes we might emulate their iconic traits. (An in fact, even these modules were un-historical to the extent that they glossed over history and ignored the foibles and other aspects of the lives of these inventors that were not pertinent to third-graders.)

It’s really odd in some ways that the YEC world converges with the world of metaphysical naturalism. In many ways, YECs are really just metaphysical naturalists who happen to include a second level of naturalism. This second level is called “spiritual,” but on deeper analysis, it is apparent that it is only a meta-level of natural science. A “natural” science that includes a super-natural physics and materials as well as earthly. In this way, they are very much Hellenists.

This is not surprising, since much of the material in our Christian Gospels and epistles was written in a Hellenistic context. However, even in these scriptures, the Hellenism is balanced by other spiritual modes. YECs and IDists take the Hellenistic mode to extremes far beyond the intent of the original authors.

In part, I believe they do this because they mistake the intent of the original authors. They read into the scriptures an attempt to promote a world view. (Which happens to be heavily slanted towards a Levantine world view in the early parts and a Hellenist world view in the later parts. And in part, many of the internecine conflict within Christian doctrine still reflect this Levantine/Hellenist split.) But I think this was not the intent of the authors at all.

The intent of the authors was simply to present an understanding and experience of God in the world. In so doing, they wrote in the context and mode most natural for their place and time. Forcing ourselves to adopt the entire text – mode, intent, and all – as equally doctrinal, not only diminishes the importance of the really relevant aspects (i.e. the mythos), it usually eventually results in the wrong extreme: an elevation of form over substance.

So, by all means, when I am reading Genesis 1, I seek to believe that the world was created in seven days. However, I have less concern over people who try to read long ages into Genesis that I do those who try the reverse (read short ages into the geological record). It’s not a case of one being right and the other being wrong. The problem is that the YECs are (in many cases, not all) making a an attempt to de-mythologize the text, whereas the long ages in Genesis group are in effect attempting to adapt the mythology and even create a new mythology.* Though not the approach I prefer, I fell this re-mythologizing is is a healthy thing overall.

-Neil

*e.g. The attempt to re-interpret the “firmament” of Genesis as a “vapor canopy” is a de-mythologizing. The idea that at some point, God chose a proto-human ancestor to become “Adam” is more similar to a re-mythologizing. Note that this difference in approaches is true regardless of what the actual history turns out to be. The YEC approach would essentially remain a de-mythologizing approach even if the world did turn out to be 6,000 years old.