Before You Sign On To OEC , better read the fine print

[disciple100]

No problem, this is an open forum.


That is a quote from D100's opening sentence. The definition of day that most YECs insist on is that a day in Genesis 1 equals a literal 24 hour day. Such a measurement is based upon the existence of a Sun. A Sun that did not exist until "mid-week." Any reference to a day before this time and how long that day was is purely speculative. Several of the early Church Fathers recognized this and rejected the idea that these days represented literal 24 hour days because of it.


You are correct only if you hold that the Day of the Lord (the context of Zech 7) represents a literal 24 hour day rather than an indistinct period of time.

when did the early church fathers decide that?

[disciple100]

Here's an excerpt from this site ( http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5450/ )

(extracted and adapted from chapter 2 of the Creation Answers Book)

The ‘framework hypothesis’ is probably the favourite view among respectability-craving seminaries that say they accept biblical authority but not six ordinary days of creation.

It is strange, if the literary framework were the true meaning of the text, that no-one interpreted Genesis this way until Arie Noordtzij in 1924. Actually it’s not so strange, because the leading framework exponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, admitted that their rationale for this bizarre, novel interpretation was a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged ‘facts’ of science.

For example, Kline admitted in his major framework article, ‘To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation “week” propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article.’1

And Blocher said, ‘This hypothesis overcomes a number of problems that plagued the commentators [including] the confrontation with the scientific vision of the most distant past.’ And he further admits that he rejects the plain teaching of Scripture because, ‘The rejection of all the theories accepted by the scientists requires considerable bravado.’2

Clearly, the framework idea did not come from trying to understand Genesis, but from trying to counter the view, held by scholar and layman alike for 2,000 years, that Genesis records real events in real space and time.3


Genesis is, without any doubt whatsoever, most definitely written as historical narrative. Hebrew uses special grammatical forms for recording history, and Genesis 1–11 uses those. It has the same structure as Genesis 12 onwards and most of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc., which no one claims is ‘poetry’ or not meant to be taken as history. Genesis is not poetry or allegory.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Mountain Man

Be mindful of fair-use when citing from copyrighted sources. Please refer to our forum rules if you have any questions.

***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 publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[rogue06]

when did the early church fathers decide that?

There never has been an official Christian position on this matter so I guess you can say that it was never "decided." But here are a few examples:

“Thus, in all the days of creation there is one day, and it is not to be taken in the sense of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another meaning, applicable to the three days mentioned before the creation of the heavenly bodies.” --St. Augustine, “The Literal Meaning of Genesis,” speaking of interpreting the Creation days in the literal sense. Augustine also wrote that, “There is no way of preserving the first chapters of Genesis without impiety, and attributing things to God unworthy of Him.” in his “De Genesi ad Manichaeos.”

Basically Augustine, along with St. Hilary, favored an instanteneous creation as evidenced by remarks made by Martn Luther in his lectures on Genesis back in 1535: "Hilary and Augustine, almost the two greatest lights of the church, hold that the world was created instantaneously and all at the same time, not successively in the course of six days.” Luther disagreed with their position.

Origen almost sounds like a mocking atheist when he wrote in his De Principiis: “What man of sense will argue with the statement that the first, second and third days, which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars? What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in Paradise like a husbandman?… I believe every man must hold these things for images under which a hidden sense is concealed.” IOW: Origen saw the days in an allegorical sense.

Clement of Alexandria thought the creation occurred outside of time and hence not during a literal six days. For instance he wrote in “Miscellanies": “And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist.” Clement also wrote, “That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth.’ For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production.”

And to wrap it up, several Early Church Fathers (ECFs) held that the days of creation lasted 1000 years each including St Cyprian ("As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand years…” ), Irenaeus. Justin Martyr, and Victorinus.

Both Aquinas, and as mentioned, Luther spoke of the differing opinions the ECFs held concerning this matter which seems to demonstrate that if this were as cut and dry as groups like AiG contend such disparity of views as those voiced by Augustine, Hilary, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Victorinus would be inexplicable.

[Faramir]

Maybe someone should rename the thread:

Before your Critique OEC, better read the HORKING BIG print.

[KBertsche]

Hi! I'm a YEC, I am no expert here, (not that I would be confused with one ), but for the creation days in Genesis, I think they are days as the ancients would understand days to be, the time it takes for the sun to come up, go down, and come up again. According to this site ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ) specifically here ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ons#fnList_1_1 ) is an excerpt for those 'days':



And here's a bit from this site ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...4/oldearth.asp ) that talks about how the god of an old earth is very different from the God of the Bible.

The AIG excerpts that you posted are greatly overstated. AIG authors start by signing a statement of faith locking them into a particular a-priori interpretation of Genesis, thus are unable to interpret in an objective, open-minded way. For another perspective, I would recommend the book by Marston, "Understanding the Biblical Creation Passages".

Note also that even if the text does mean to imply literal, 24 hour days, this does not necessarily imply YEC. There are a number of OEC views that incorporate 24-hour days:
1) the gap theory (the account being a re-creation after a long period of earth history)
2) non-contiguous days (huge gaps between each of 6 24-hour days)
3) the days are presented as 24-hour days within a non-literal, literary account (some Framework folks would hold this)
4) the days are 24-hour days within a mythical story (some TEs may hold this)

[disciple100]

Well, let me ask you this, what exactly was going on during those first three days? The problem I have with OEC (that is, the version where people believe millions or billions of years took place before mankind) is what would be going on? Some Christians believe that evolution took place and then when man reached a certain state God intervened. If that's the case, what were the animals doing? Sitting around? Not eating eachother?

I'm wondering which type of OEC is being talked about here? Because I don't want to just start making generalizations.

I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, like I said I am no expert, but things like the gap theory seem to me to have serious gaps themselves. I would consider the Creation of the Earth to be a miraculous event. Another would be the Flood. A global Flood would explain how the Grand Canyon formed so quickly in the YEC, and sudden burial of the dinosaurs would explain the well preserved fossils, etc.

Why would it not be feasible for God to create the world in six days? Also, I am sorry if I make it sound 'cut and dry', though one could say that OEC followers do the same. OEC sounds more like a way to reconcile Christianity with Science. I like how N. T. Wright put it, "Science studies the repeatable, History studies the unrepeatable." There is only one first time for everything.

I can understand differing opinions on the issue, just because something is not mentioned does mean it did not happen, it just was not relevant to the author, so really there is no definite answer here. I just think, based on the evidence we do have, that YEC seems more likely than OEC.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, let me ask you this, what exactly was going on during those first three days? The problem I have with OEC (that is, the version where people believe millions or billions of years took place before mankind) is what would be going on? Some Christians believe that evolution took place and then when man reached a certain state God intervened. If that's the case, what were the animals doing? Sitting around? Not eating eachother?

I'm wondering which type of OEC is being talked about here? Because I don't want to just start making generalizations.

I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, like I said I am no expert, but things like the gap theory seem to me to have serious gaps themselves. I would consider the Creation of the Earth to be a miraculous event. Another would be the Flood. A global Flood would explain how the Grand Canyon formed so quickly in the YEC, and sudden burial of the dinosaurs would explain the well preserved fossils, etc.

Why would it not be feasible for God to create the world in six days? Also, I am sorry if I make it sound 'cut and dry', though one could say that OEC followers do the same. OEC sounds more like a way to reconcile Christianity with Science. I like how N. T. Wright put it, "Science studies the repeatable, History studies the unrepeatable." There is only one first time for everything.

I can understand differing opinions on the issue, just because something is not mentioned does mean it did not happen, it just was not relevant to the author, so really there is no definite answer here. I just think, based on the evidence we do have, that YEC seems more likely than OEC.

Based on the evidence we have, a world and a universe >6000 years old is the more likely. I mean, it is as solid a conclusion as anyone can get about anything. The issues you seem to have are more in the theological/philosophical realm - which generally is where this debate has its origins anyway. There is no objective physical reason to think the world or universe is young, and there are libraries full of reasons to think it is old.

What would God be doing in all that 'time'? Well, first of all realize time for God is not time for us. 1000 years is as yesterday, as a watch in the night for Him the Psalmist says in 90:4. So if he decided to let the universe and the Earth follow a natural course to the preparation needed for our current story (the story of redemption in Christ) to play out, it is of no consequence. Also, as for death before the fall, that is an issue most OEC and TE's accept as reality. And I can give you quite a few reasons it is a bit silly (based on the Biblical text itself) to presume nothing died before the fall.

Jim

[disciple100]

The AIG excerpts that you posted are greatly overstated. AIG authors start by signing a statement of faith locking them into a particular a-priori interpretation of Genesis, thus are unable to interpret in an objective, open-minded way. For another perspective, I would recommend the book by Marston, "Understanding the Biblical Creation Passages".

Note also that even if the text does mean to imply literal, 24 hour days, this does not necessarily imply YEC. There are a number of OEC views that incorporate 24-hour days:
1) the gap theory (the account being a re-creation after a long period of earth history)
2) non-contiguous days (huge gaps between each of 6 24-hour days)
3) the days are presented as 24-hour days within a non-literal, literary account (some Framework folks would hold this)
4) the days are 24-hour days within a mythical story (some TEs may hold this)

Just to let you know, I just finished reading the e-Book of that. It was an interesting read.

Basically what I get from it that we just don't know how old the earth is, whether it be 6000 or more. (Though where we get the concept that 6000 is not a long time is beyond me.) I still say the earth is considerably younger than 'billions'. For one thing the method of dating is severely flawed, at one time the scientists thought that despite different conditions the decay of carbon et al would remain constant, but we know that is not true.

Also I got that it doesn't really matter, apparently it didn't to the writer. I thought the bit about instantaneous creation was interesting. But I think it would be more likely that all the different 'kinds' were created separately, rather than us and all the other animals sharing a common ancestor.

[KBertsche]

For one thing the method of dating is severely flawed, at one time the scientists thought that despite different conditions the decay of carbon et al would remain constant, but we know that is not true.

It is true that decay rates are constant (except for very small changes for a couple of specific light isotopes and specific decay processes). Do you have any solid evidence to the contrary (not merely unfounded allegations by RATE et al)?

But I think it would be more likely that all the different 'kinds' were created separately, rather than us and all the other animals sharing a common ancestor.

Most OEC's agree with you on this, otherwise they would call themselves TEs.

[disciple100]

It is true that decay rates are constant (except for very small changes for a couple of specific light isotopes and specific decay processes). Do you have any solid evidence to the contrary (not merely unfounded allegations by RATE et al)?

Nope, all I got's the unfounded allegations by RATE et al. Like here :

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...c-dating-prove

Based on the measured helium retention, a statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This age agrees with literal biblical history and is about 250,000 times shorter than the conventional age of 1.5 billion years for zircons. The conclusion is that helium diffusion data strongly supports the young-earth view of history.

Like I said, it might be more than 6000, but billions seems a bit much. I can see what you guys mean about trying to force things to fit, and as I said, Marston's book was an interesting read.

Most OEC's agree with you on this, otherwise they would call themselves TEs.

Yeah, I'm no ape! 2% is a big difference.

[KBertsche]

Nope, all I got's the unfounded allegations by RATE et al. Like here :

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...c-dating-prove

FYI, a number of evangelical believers (including me) have analyzed the RATE claims and found that they do not hold up:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm

[disciple100]

here's another excerpt from http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...c-dating-prove

We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

[disciple100]

FYI, a number of evangelical believers (including me) have analyzed the RATE claims and found that they do not hold up:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm

Thank you for the link. I found this bit interesting:

The RATE team has honestly acknowledged that even if their technical claims were accurate, there remain unsolved problems that cannot be reconciled with any known scientific process. In his summary at the RATE conference in Denver on Sept. 15, 2007, Don DeYoung noted the need to invoke divine intervention in order to circumvent these problems. However, the oft-stated summary by the RATE team, that their results provide assurance of the biblical interpretation of a young earth, leaves the average listener with the mistaken impression that these problems are nonexistent, trivial, or soon to be resolved. Rather, the RATE team acknowledged overwhelming evidence for hundreds of millions of year’s worth of radioactivity [12] and admitted that compressing this activity into a few thousand years would generate more than enough heat to vaporize all granitic rock. [13] They state that no known thermodynamic process could dissipate such a large amount of heat. [14] Their expressed hope in solving heat dissipation by cooling via enhanced cosmological expansion [15] has not been realized and is not consistent with our knowledge of the expanding universe. [16] Thus, the RATE team has provided solid evidence that, scientifically, the earth cannot be thousands but must be billions of years old.

Now, would it exactly be wrong to think that God may have divinely intervened and sped things up?

[KBertsche]

here's another excerpt from http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...c-dating-prove

We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

Whoever wrote this up is either ignorant of geological dating techniques or is intentionally trying to deceive.

Standard K-Ar dating has been known for decades to have exactly this problem if the lava has cooled too rapidly. This has been well documented in the literature. Because of this, an improved technique called Ar-Ar (or 39Ar-40Ar) was developed more than 20 years ago. This technique is able to exclude the original argon, and to give accurate dates even on rapidly-cooled lava. If the lava is suspected of cooling rapidly, Ar-Ar should be used rather than K-Ar.

If the RATE team really used K-Ar for rapidly-cooled lava, they used the wrong tool and got bad data. To use this bad data to cast doubt on all of radioisotope dating is disingenuous.

[lfellows]

The Zechariah passage refers to 'one day' whose length is known only to the lord, for there is neither day nor night to define it so man can know. It is not a 'literal' day as in 24 hours. Read the entire context.

The supports the idea that

(1) there are 'days' whose length is defined by the Lord, not the markers used by men.
(2) the construct used to describe such a day is the same as that used in Genesis 1:5

Where do you get the idea that the length of the day is known only by the Lord? You state it is not a literal 24-hour day without any support other then assuming that because the night will be illuminated that 24-hours cannot still define the time period. Then you jump from your unsupported assumption about the length of the day to the conclusion that your assumption supports 'days of unknown length'.

The Hosea passage is a passage speaking of the return of Israel to their God (at least from the Christian POV) which has parallel application in the death and resurrection of Christ. However, in no way are these days simple 24 hour periods in context, they refer to a period of time which many liken to the current 2000 year 'time of the gentiles' prophetically. (Just do a web search on Hosea 6). But they are, regardless of a Judaic or Christian approach to their interpretation, NOT 24 hour days.

All through Hosea we see day being used to mean time periods greater than 24 hours, and this construct, again, is like the one in Genesis.

Please show me in the Hebrew where 'day' is used to imply anything other then a traditional 24-hour day in Hosea 6:2? With the exception of Hosea 6:2, I did not even find a mention of time measurement in Hosea 6.

ETA: What both of these passages show is that the proper interpretation of 'day' is not defined by some ad hoc grammatical rule, but by the context of the text.

?? When does 'day' refer to a literal 24-hour period of time we call 'day' except by the application of our agreed upon rules of grammer?