Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Geisler on inerrancy and age of earth

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    57
    Amen (Received)
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Raphael View Post
    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.

    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.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Last edited by Kbertsche; 03-06-2014 at 02:48 AM.

  2. #12
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    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.

  3. #13
    Undergraduate
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Posts
    2
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    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

  4. #14
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,774
    Amen (Given)
    19801
    Amen (Received)
    6355
    Quote Originally Posted by manalive883 View Post
    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]
    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.

  5. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Missourah, USA
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,274
    Amen (Given)
    3116
    Amen (Received)
    374
    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.

    Last edited by Littlejoe; 12-26-2014 at 11:52 PM.

  6. #16
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    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.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  7. #17
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    57
    Amen (Received)
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    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.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

  8. #18
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,664
    Amen (Given)
    6213
    Amen (Received)
    5995
    Quote Originally Posted by Raphael View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,774
    Amen (Given)
    19801
    Amen (Received)
    6355
    And progressive creationism.

  10. #20
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,774
    Amen (Given)
    19801
    Amen (Received)
    6355
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •