Geisler on inerrancy and age of earth

[Kbertsche]

Dr. Norman Geisler recently wrote an excellent article: "Does believing in inerrancy require one to believe in young earth creationism?"
http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bi...YoungEarth.htm

Here is his conclusion:


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

[Cow Poke]

I agree with Geisler's points numbered 1, 3, 5, and 7, along with the even numbered ones.

[Jedidiah]

I find it interesting that Gleason Archer stated that you can have either inerrancy or a young earth, not both.

[Raphael]

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]

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:

[Paprika]

If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Utter bosh which conflates natural facts with revelation through nature.

[JonathanL]

If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

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

[Cerebrum123]

If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

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]

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

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]

If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

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]

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 on the ICBI "Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics", article 22:

Source: Dr. Norman Geisler

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.

© Copyright Original Source

[Darth Xena]

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]

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-...ay-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]

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-...ay-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]

[klaus54]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Littlejoe

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

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.