Serious and Sincere Questions for an Old Earth Creationist

[SixLiteralDays]

I have recently written a rather long paper (22 pages) critiquing many of the biblical and theological arguments used by old earth creationists (OECs) in an effort to confirm their views from Scripture. This paper did not touch on the scientific aspects of the old earth vs. young earth debate nor did it delve into the local flood vs. global flood battle.
Obviously, judging by my screen name, I have a bias. I am hoping that an old earth creationist would be willing to read the paper and offer his/her thoughts. Am I fairly representing the OEC position? Are there other arguments that I missed? Have I misused Scripture in any way during my critique?
I am interested in the truth - I am not trying to be smug in any way. I have been studying this particular debate for nearly a decade and I am tired of disingenuous arguments (from both sides). My hope is that this paper will help remove some of the faulty arguments that are currently being used.
I am not looking to get involved in a long drawn out debate since I don't have the time right now (I had to write this paper over my Christmas break). I am simply asking for Christians who believe in an old earth (i.e. millions or billions of years) to review my paper and let me know what they think.
I chose to post in this forum because it is "theist only" and I want to focus solely on the biblical and theological aspects of the debate. After all, if the Bible does speak to this issue (age of the earth) then one ought to be able to find support for his/her view in Scripture.
The paper can be found on my website (www.midwestapologetics.org). Here is the direct link to the paper: http://www.midwestapologetics.org/ar...n/futility.htm

Feel free to post your responses on this thread or directly to me via email (email address may be found on our "Contact Us" page). If you post here, I will do my best to respond in a timely manner. Thank you!
YECs are welcome to read it and offer a response, as well.

Enjoy!

[technomage]

Greetings,

First (and least important), while the seal for your organization is esthetically pleasing, having it behind the text makes the article quite difficult to read (at least for my eyes). You might want to consider placing the text in its own background--I have an example here (this was a webpage I wrote before I converted to Christianity).

Secondly ... and far more importantly ... I must agree with Dr. Robert Pyne in one respect: "As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young earth creationism." (Dr. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress 1994) p. 162) By your claim that "The God of the Big Bang is NOT the God of the Bible," it looks very much as though you are claiming that those who hold to anything but a literal 6-day creation are not saved. By making YEC necessary for salvation, you are adding to the Gospel ... and Paul was rather scathing in his opinion of those who did so.

I consider anyone who trusts in Jesus Christ to be my brother or sister, regardless of what their preferred cosmology is. The creation account is not central to salvation. Christ crucified and resurrected is.

[lee_merrill]

Hi Tim,

Maybe this should be moved to the Protology forum?

But here are some comments from OEC (for now) Lee...

Being really honest, one would have to admit that you could never get the idea of millions of years from reading this passage. ... Some OECs admit that this supposition is a major strength of the YEC position...

This seems to be setting up a false dilemma, though, is the alternative the young earth view, if I don't think of millions of years?

It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days...

Don't these arguments prove a flat earth view, too, though? And what is a solar day without a sun?

Hugh Ross tells a story of a granny who came up to him saying she had thought the days were not literal ones, upon reading Scripture, and before she heard the OEC view. Augustine also could be mentioned in this regard, as could Origen, whom, as I have heard, thought time began on the fourth day:

"But at least we know that it [the Genesis day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar. ... We must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them." (Augustine)

... and that all fossils were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.

I would never get this idea about the fossils from reading the flood account in the Bible, though! Does that mean the OEC view is correct?

... “for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth.” Since the context refers to the keeping of the Sabbath Day, YECs contend it is natural to assume the author is referring to literal 24-hour days.

Well, it is, but we need not think God has a literal arm, if there are other aspects to consider. And the early church fathers thought "In the day you eat of it, you will die" referred to a long time period, not to a 24-hour day, did they naturally think this? No, they had other considerations, and then came to that conclusion.

YECs are quick to point out that every occurrence of the word yom in the Old Testament means a literal twenty-four hour day when it is paired with the words evening, morning or night.

Zechariah 14:7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-- a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light.


"A unique day" seems to mean more than a 24-hour day! There will be only one of them?

Throughout Genesis 1, yom appears with ordinal numbers and the words evening, morning, and night.

Actually, for the first day, it is not an ordinal, as I understand it. And isn't the "Sabbath" an ordinal tied to a specific day throughout Scripture? So then to counter this, we only need one mention of Sabbath which means other than a 24-hour period:

Hebrews 4:9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God...

That is all the rest we will have? Only 24 hours? And even if all other ordinal uses mean 24-days, that doesn't prove it can only mean 24-hour days. Just because I only reference 24-hour days in this post, doesn't mean I think a day can't mean "daylight" instead.

What does other Hebrew literature show here? That would be what I would wonder.

If animal death and bloodshed occurred before sin, then in Genesis 1: 31 God labels death as “very good.”

Well, no, "all that he had made" was very good. Now if there were effects of sin in the world (were pootie and snot "very good"? Are those best, and the epitome of perfection? But see 1 Cor. 6:13), then those aspects would not be under consideration here.

And as far as animal death, what about microorganisms? Just some person or creature drinking some water results in many of them dying, how was this impossible before the fall? And the Bible refers to plants withering as being a parallel to human death, for example, here:

Psalm 90:5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning...

So how could there be plant death before the fall, if there is this parallel? Not to mention the fact that the dividing line between plants and animals is not so completely clear.

The Curse pronounced on Adam, Eve, and the ground becomes an empty threat because there was already death and the ground was already producing thorns and thistles.

Not at all, God did not say "now there will be death," he only said "in that day, you will die." And God saying "it will produce thorns and thistles for you" actually would instead tend to indicate thorns and thistles elsewhere, and also that Adam knew what these were.

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female…” (Matt. 19: 4). The obvious implication here is that Jesus knew that Adam and Eve were created “at the beginning.”

Well, isn't this more literally "from the beginning," and then it could refer to their beginning, not to the beginning of all creation. Um, that would be the first day, would it not, not the sixth?

Isaiah 65 speaks of a peaceful time in which “the wolf and the lamb shall feed together” (v. 25). This restoration...

Where is this said to be a restoration, though? It's "a new heavens and a new earth."

Adam only named the cattle, beasts of the field, and birds of the air (v. 20). It has been demonstrated that Adam could have easily named each of these creatures in less than four hours...

Well, sure, if we reduce the numbers enough! Yet just look at all the different names for owls in Lev. 11:13-19. And might it be appropriate to observe some behavior, before naming a creature?

Let us also note that Scripture says (Gen. 1:12) trees were bearing fruit! That takes some time.

Why did God not use any of these words with reference to the creation days, seeing that He used them to describe other things? Clearly it was His intention that the creation days should be regarded as being normal earth-rotation days...

I would not say the earth was rotating, though, just from reading Genesis! Does that mean the OEC position is correct? And this also assumes that "day" could not mean a long time period here. If it could mean that, then that is why God used it!

If the exclusion of the phrase “evening and morning” allows the seventh day to be longer then this is really unintentional admission that the first six days were literal twenty-four hour days.

Unless "day" can mean a long time period...

I think I will stop here, upon agreeing with Justin that this is not a watershed issue...

Blessings,
Lee

[SixLiteralDays]

Greetings,

First (and least important), while the seal for your organization is esthetically pleasing, having it behind the text makes the article quite difficult to read (at least for my eyes). You might want to consider placing the text in its own background--I have an example here (this was a webpage I wrote before I converted to Christianity).

Thank you for your kind comments regarding the logo and also your suggestions on making the pages more readable. I've been thinking of an alternative.

Secondly ... and far more importantly ... I must agree with Dr. Robert Pyne in one respect: "As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young earth creationism." (Dr. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress 1994) p. 162) By your claim that "The God of the Big Bang is NOT the God of the Bible," it looks very much as though you are claiming that those who hold to anything but a literal 6-day creation are not saved. By making YEC necessary for salvation, you are adding to the Gospel ... and Paul was rather scathing in his opinion of those who did so.

The article listed in my signature ("The God of the Big Bang is NOT the God of the Bible") makes it very clear that I do not question the faith of people such as Hugh Ross, Norman Geisler, etc. I believe they are Christians - this point is stressed in both articles. This is one of the common OEC arguments and it is absolutely fallacious - YECs (at least the majority of them, certainly the most prominent YEC organizations - ICR, AIG, CRS, etc.) do not say that OECs are not Christians.

I consider anyone who trusts in Jesus Christ to be my brother or sister, regardless of what their preferred cosmology is. The creation account is not central to salvation. Christ crucified and resurrected is.

I agree. Creation is not "central" to salvation but it is foundational to it. Can someone deny the plain meaning of Genesis 1 and still be saved? YES! 1 Cor. 15 outlines the Gospel that Paul preached and it didn't include cosmology. This does not negate the importance of the issue. Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not God's Word can be trusted. Again, this point is covered in the paper.

[technomage]

Thank you for your kind comments regarding the logo and also your suggestions on making the pages more readable. I've been thinking of an alternative.

If you program your code "by hand," I'll be glad to help with the code in as much as I can. I'm not an HTML wizard, but I can do the basic stuff.

The article listed in my signature ("The God of the Big Bang is NOT the God of the Bible") makes it very clear that I do not question the faith of people such as Hugh Ross, Norman Geisler, etc. I believe they are Christians - this point is stressed in both articles. This is one of the common OEC arguments and it is absolutely fallacious - YECs (at least the majority of them, certainly the most prominent YEC organizations - ICR, AIG, CRS, etc.) do not say that OECs are not Christians.

Cool. There are a few YEC proponents who do say "Non-YECs are not Christians," but they're mostly regarded as flakes, even in the YEC community. Please understand I wasn't fussing at you--I was a bit nervous about it, and wanted to clarify.

I agree. Creation is not "central" to salvation but it is foundational to it.

*shrug* I don't necessarily agree ... but at the same time, I don't consider the disagreement to be crucial--at least, it's not crucial from my side of the fence. For my part, if someone says "A plain reading of the Genesis account indicates a six day creation," I agree whole-heartedly. I'm just not sure if the Genesis account was intended to be taken literally or metaphorically.

[SixLiteralDays]

[QUOTE=lee_merrill]Hi Tim,

Maybe this should be moved to the Protology forum?

But here are some comments from OEC (for now) Lee...

This seems to be setting up a false dilemma, though, is the alternative the young earth view, if I don't think of millions of years?[ /QUOTE]

Hi Lee,

Thanks for taking the time to read the paper and respond. Allow me to quickly respond to some of your responses.
I would say the either the Scripture is to be taken literally (appx. 6,000 years) or it is not. I don't think this is a false dilemma.

Don't these arguments prove a flat earth view, too, though? And what is a solar day without a sun?

Hugh Ross tells a story of a granny who came up to him saying she had thought the days were not literal ones, upon reading Scripture, and before she heard the OEC view. Augustine also could be mentioned in this regard, as could Origen, whom, as I have heard, thought time began on the fourth day:

"But at least we know that it [the Genesis day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar. ... We must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them." (Augustine)

These arguments do not prove a flat earth. The Bible does not teach a flat earth - this was dealt with in the paper. "What is a solar day without the sun?" My point exactly. That is why I suggested using the term "sidereal" instead of solar. It was an OEC who used the term "solar" here.

I would never get this idea about the fossils from reading the flood account in the Bible, though! Does that mean the OEC view is correct?

The Bible does not say that billions of fossils were formed during the flood. I agree. However, if we must try to figure out where they came from, the flood is a perfect explanation for the majority of fossils. Again, this is simply a quote from an OEC.

Well, it is, but we need not think God has a literal arm, if there are other aspects to consider. And the early church fathers thought "In the day you eat of it, you will die" referred to a long time period, not to a 24-hour day, did they naturally think this? No, they had other considerations, and then came to that conclusion.

You are confusing literalism and letterism. Literalism allows for anthropomorphisms and other such literary devices. This was also addressed in the paper. The Hebrew word for "die" used here means that one will start to die and will continue to die until death.

Zechariah 14:7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-- a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light.
"A unique day" seems to mean more than a 24-hour day! There will be only one of them?

If it will be "unique" doesn't that mean that it is different from the rest of them? If this one is a long period of time then the rest of them are different. Also, it is not clear that this day will be longer than 24 hours. It is unique, according to the text, in that it will be light during the night.

Actually, for the first day, it is not an ordinal, as I understand it. And isn't the "Sabbath" an ordinal tied to a specific day throughout Scripture? So then to counter this, we only need one mention of Sabbath which means other than a 24-hour period:

Hebrews 4:9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God...

That is all the rest we will have? Only 24 hours? And even if all other ordinal uses mean 24-days, that doesn't prove it can only mean 24-hour days. Just because I only reference 24-hour days in this post, doesn't mean I think a day can't mean "daylight" instead.

I believe the first day uses a cardinal number - this was also mentioned in the paper (footnote #86). The Hebrews passage was also dealt with in the paper.

Well, no, "all that he had made" was very good. Now if there were effects of sin in the world (were pootie and snot "very good"? Are those best, and the epitome of perfection? But see 1 Cor. 6:13), then those aspects would not be under consideration here.

I have to admit this is the first time that I have heard these ideas ("pootie and snot"). Since these are normal body functions I have a hard time seeing them as contradicting the "very good" pronouncement.

And as far as animal death, what about microorganisms? Just some person or creature drinking some water results in many of them dying, how was this impossible before the fall? And the Bible refers to plants withering as being a parallel to human death, for example, here:

Psalm 90:5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning...

So how could there be plant death before the fall, if there is this parallel? Not to mention the fact that the dividing line between plants and animals is not so completely clear.

Microorganisms do not have nephesh chayyah and neither do plants. Only animals and humans are described in this way. Psalm 90 is a poetic passage using poetic imagery. This is not the same as historical narrative and should be interpreted differently. Either way, it says that the grass "withers" not "dies."

Not at all, God did not say "now there will be death," he only said "in that day, you will die." And God saying "it will produce thorns and thistles for you" actually would instead tend to indicate thorns and thistles elsewhere, and also that Adam knew what these were.

The thorns and thistles were a result of the curse on the ground. It did not specify that it was only the ground that Adam was going to work. Adam was also thrown out of the Garden immediately after this. So was the ground in the Garden cursed and then Adam was removed? Or was the ground outside the Garden already producing thorns and thistles? If the latter, why did God even mention thorns and thistles? The fact is that they were introduced at the time of the Curse. If Adam didn't know what they were (God could have easily created Adam with the knowledge of them) he would find out soon enough.

Well, isn't this more literally "from the beginning," and then it could refer to their beginning, not to the beginning of all creation. Um, that would be the first day, would it not, not the sixth?

When one runs a marathon (not that I could ever do it) he could easily say after the race, "I started out slow at the beginning." To what part of the race was he referring? It could have been anywhere in the first several miles. In no way could he be referring to the last mile or two. Yet the OEC is forced to interpret Jesus' statement in this way.
Also, your argument forces Jesus to be wrong no matter how one interprets it.

Well, sure, if we reduce the numbers enough! Yet just look at all the different names for owls in Lev. 11:13-19. And might it be appropriate to observe some behavior, before naming a creature?

It's not about reducing the numbers. It's about figuring out which ones he actually had to name rather than creating a straw man argument about the hundreds of thousands of species.

Let us also note that Scripture says (Gen. 1:12) trees were bearing fruit! That takes some time.

Not for a God who can create a full-grown man and full-grown woman.

I would not say the earth was rotating, though, just from reading Genesis! Does that mean the OEC position is correct? And this also assumes that "day" could not mean a long time period here. If it could mean that, then that is why God used it!

Since there was evening and morning, I would assume that the earth was rotating. I'm not sure how this would substantiate the OEC position. YECs have always said the earth was rotating from day one.

Unless "day" can mean a long time period...

Yes it can - as pointed out in the paper. But context must determine what is meant. Can you find any example where the Bible confirms the OEC position? Your contentions (except for the snot and pootie ) have been dealt with before. It is not enough to find one usage of a word in a poetic passage or apocalyptic passage and say that this proves it can mean something else in Genesis. One must demonstrate that Genesis 1 - 11 clearly support the OEC position. This has not been done nor do I believe it ever will be.

I think I will stop here, upon agreeing with Justin that this is not a watershed issue...

Blessings,
Lee

It is extremely important because of the dramatic impact it is having on the church. It is not directly a salvation issue but it is indirectly in many ways.

Have a great day!
Tim

[kuboes1831]

Thank you for your kind comments regarding the logo and also your suggestions on making the pages more readable. I've been thinking of an alternative.



The article listed in my signature ("The God of the Big Bang is NOT the God of the Bible") makes it very clear that I do not question the faith of people such as Hugh Ross, Norman Geisler, etc. I believe they are Christians - this point is stressed in both articles. This is one of the common OEC arguments and it is absolutely fallacious - YECs (at least the majority of them, certainly the most prominent YEC organizations - ICR, AIG, CRS, etc.) do not say that OECs are not Christians.



I agree. Creation is not "central" to salvation but it is foundational to it. Can someone deny the plain meaning of Genesis 1 and still be saved? YES! 1 Cor. 15 outlines the Gospel that Paul preached and it didn't include cosmology. This does not negate the importance of the issue. Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not God's Word can be trusted. Again, this point is covered in the paper.

If you want people to read your article then remove that seal/watermark. I gave up reading it after half a page

[SixLiteralDays]

If you want people to read your article then remove that seal/watermark. I gave up reading it after half a page

Done. It's gone.

[lee_merrill]

Hi again, Tim,

Thanks for your reply...

Tim: I would say the either the Scripture is to be taken literally (appx. 6,000 years) or it is not.

Yes, I would say that the literal sense of "day" may not be best. We need not take "literal" as meaning "correct"! Or else we will be insisting that the sun really rises, and this means it moves through the sky.

Tim: It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days...

Lee: Don't these arguments prove a flat earth view, too, though?

Tim: These arguments do not prove a flat earth.

Well, if we say "the Bible reveals the earth is round in several places" this doesn't not prove the case that this is not taught! The earth could quite easily be round and flat, so how is it that we should not also believe the earth is flat, because it is the most straightforward understanding of various Scripture references, without regard to scientific considerations? It would seem these areas have some marked similarities.

And it seems we skipped my Augustine quote:

"But at least we know that it [the Genesis day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar. ... We must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them." (Augustine)

And Origen (as I have heard) believing that time started on the fourth day.

The Bible does not say that billions of fossils were formed during the flood. I agree. However, if we must try to figure out where they came from, the flood is a perfect explanation for the majority of fossils.

Not really! But were we trying to steer clear of scientific considerations? I only offer that fossils would not sort themselves by layers in a flood, various creatures having various climbing abilities would not sort them so specifically, and aren't there creatures of all the various climbing abilities in the various layers?

Lee: ... the early church fathers thought "In the day you eat of it, you will die" referred to a long time period, not to a 24-hour day, did they naturally think this? No, they had other considerations, and then came to that conclusion.

Tim: You are confusing literalism and letterism. Literalism allows for anthropomorphisms and other such literary devices.

Yes, so could it be that "day" is such a usage? Especially when the early church fathers interpreted this very word differently than a 24-hour day, based on other considerations than the apparent, first-glance meaning of the statement. Would they not be willing to consider doing the same with other usages of "day" in these chapters of Genesis?

It seems these situations are very similar.

The Hebrew word for "die" used here means that one will start to die and will continue to die until death.

Yes, I agree, that is what I think was meant, as in the (ironically) strictly literal meaning of what was said, "dying, you will die."

Zechariah 14:7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-- a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light.

Lee: "A unique day" seems to mean more than a 24-hour day! There will be only one of them?

Tim: If it will be "unique" doesn't that mean that it is different from the rest of them?

But here evening was mentioned with "day," this is an instance where both "day" and "evening" appear, yet the claim was that "occurrence of the word yom in the Old Testament means a literal twenty-four hour day when it is paired with the words evening, morning or night."

Tim: I believe the first day uses a cardinal number...

Oops, you're right, I thought you meant "ordinal." But "one day" does occur in other places, where it does not refer to a 24-hour period:

Genesis 27:45 Why should I lose both of you in one day?

Since these are normal body functions I have a hard time seeing them as contradicting the "very good" pronouncement.

Are we to say because it is normal bodily function, it is therefore good? But God will do away with "food for the stomach, and the stomach for food" (1 Cor. 6:13), indicating that this is not God's final plan for nature, and therefore less than his ultimate goal. So "very good" need not imply "best of all possible worlds," nor need it imply that there were no difficulties or problems in it, this pronouncement therefore need not rule out death in nature.

And "subdue the earth" implies there was a need of some subduing!

Microorganisms do not have nephesh chayyah and neither do plants.

Do you mean an animal that is not breathing air, if it dies, that is not what the Bible would call death? Then what about fish? Would fish eating other fish be acceptable before the fall? Just trying to clarify here...

Psalm 90 is a poetic passage using poetic imagery. This is not the same as historical narrative and should be interpreted differently.

But the point is that there is a direct parallel being made here. So how is it that plant death cannot be considered in an important way, analogous to human death in the Bible? So this would seem to counter the point that plant death and human/animal death are quite different concepts in Scripture, that plants being eaten before the fall would not be classed as death similar to humans dying.

Either way, it says that the grass "withers" not "dies."

So does the Bible, though, in reference to humans dying:

Job 14:2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure.

See also Ps. 129:6, Jas. 1:11.

It did not specify that it was only the ground that Adam was going to work.

Well, God saying "for you," seems to imply that this curse was specific to Adam's efforts, rather than a general appearance of thorns.

... was the ground outside the Garden already producing thorns and thistles? If the latter, why did God even mention thorns and thistles?

Because they would now become quite difficult to manage?

If Adam didn't know what they were (God could have easily created Adam with the knowledge of them) he would find out soon enough.

Certainly that's possible, but what is most probable?

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children."

This would imply that there was pain before this time in childbearing, and pain in general before the fall, and also it would seem more probable that the concept of pain was known when this statement was made. Similarly with God saying "you will surely die," this would imply knowledge of what death was, and make it probable that this was something Adam was acquainted with.

"I started out slow at the beginning." To what part of the race was he referring? It could have been anywhere in the first several miles.

Yes, but not if you were referring to an act of creation! That can't be stretched in this way. So we need not be strict literalists, here, "from the beginning," even on the YEC view, is not strictly literal.

In no way could he be referring to the last mile or two. Yet the OEC is forced to interpret Jesus' statement in this way.

Well, no, I hold that Jesus meant "from the beginning of mankind they were made male and female," thus the OEC view need not say Jesus was wrong.

Lee: Let us also note that Scripture says (Gen. 1:12) trees were bearing fruit! That takes some time.

Tim: Not for a God who can create a full-grown man and full-grown woman.

But how do we know they were created full-grown? I think the pictures in the Sunday School books may be much mistaken.

But we don't say "This tree has been bearing fruit for the last 15 seconds." To say a tree is bearing fruit implies a more extended time period, a demonstration of the process.

Tim: Since there was evening and morning, I would assume that the earth was rotating.

But not without scientific considerations! If we are to take the plain apparent meaning here, without such considerations, then we will conclude that "there was evening and morning" indicates no motion of the earth.

Can you find any example where the Bible confirms the OEC position?

No, nor can I can find a place where it says the earth orbits the sun...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. As far as a background is concerned, you may perhaps know that you can load your photo in to (say) Photoshop and then adjust brightness and contrast so it is still visible, yet not overshadowing the text...

[kuboes1831]

Done. It's gone.

Now I can read it for what's worth!

[shunyadragon]

I have recently written a rather long paper (22 pages) critiquing many of the biblical and theological arguments used by old earth creationists (OECs) in an effort to confirm their views from Scripture. This paper did not touch on the scientific aspects of the old earth vs. young earth debate nor did it delve into the local flood vs. global flood battle.
Obviously, judging by my screen name, I have a bias. I am hoping that an old earth creationist would be willing to read the paper and offer his/her thoughts. Am I fairly representing the OEC position? Are there other arguments that I missed? Have I misused Scripture in any way during my critique?

I will read and respond to your article, but part of my argument against YEC creationism rests with the wisdom ofsome church fathers like St. Augustine. The following reflects his understanding which is timeless.

St Augustine

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."


- St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

© source where applicable

In other words he says, 'You need not be a fool for Christ's sake.'

[SixLiteralDays]

I will read and respond to your article, but part of my argument against YEC creationism rests with the wisdom ofsome church fathers like St. Augustine. The following reflects his understanding which is timeless.

St Augustine

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."


- St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

© source where applicable

In other words he says, 'You need not be a fool for Christ's sake.'

I completely agree with the quote. I think it is extremely important for a Christian to be able to speak with competence about science, philosophy, history, etc.
I'm not sure if you are implying this but we have to remember the difference between operational science and what some have called "origins science." Operational science is the things we can observe, hypothesize, test, etc. It has led to so many of our technological advances and is a wonderful thing. However, "origins science" is much different. It is based on a belief about the past. We can still form hypotheses and examine the evidence to see if it lines up but we can not observe it directly so all conclusions must be tentatively.

[grmorton]

Hi Tim,

Maybe this should be moved to the Protology forum?

For heavens sake no! I am a theist, and I believe in the special creation of man, but I am not allowed to be in Protology.

[grmorton]

The article listed in my signature ("The God of the Big Bang is NOT the God of the Bible") makes it very clear that I do not question the faith of people such as Hugh Ross, Norman Geisler, etc. I believe they are Christians - this point is stressed in both articles. This is one of the common OEC arguments and it is absolutely fallacious - YECs (at least the majority of them, certainly the most prominent YEC organizations - ICR, AIG, CRS, etc.) do not say that OECs are not Christians.

No, but they don't treat us like brothers and sisters in Christ. They call us lots of names.

I would love to read your paper, but my browser says it can't find the server.

[SixLiteralDays]

Hi again, Tim,

Thanks for your reply...
Yes, I would say that the literal sense of "day" may not be best. We need not take "literal" as meaning "correct"! Or else we will be insisting that the sun really rises, and this means it moves through the sky.

Well, if we say "the Bible reveals the earth is round in several places" this doesn't not prove the case that this is not taught! The earth could quite easily be round and flat, so how is it that we should not also believe the earth is flat, because it is the most straightforward understanding of various Scripture references, without regard to scientific considerations? It would seem these areas have some marked similarities.

First, the context must be used to determine the meaning of any word, including yom. In the context of Genesis 1, as pointed out in the paper, it is obvious the author intended six normal days - as many OECs acknowledge. This is the natural reading of the text.
Second, I'm not sure if I gave the wrong impression. I am not looking to neglect all science here nor do I advocate that people do that. Hermeneutics is a science so that must be employed. Also, what I was getting at is that I wanted to focus my paper on the biblical and theological arguments used by OECs - not exclusive of using science - I just didn't want to delve into the scientific age of the earth/universe arguments for two reasons. One, this has been done before on numerous occasions. Two, I would still be working on the paper. It was long enough just looking at the biblical arguments (now, thanks to you , it's going to be longer - I have to add a section on the nephesh creatures). Also, see my response to Shunya for a brief discussion on science.

And it seems we skipped my Augustine quote:

"But at least we know that it [the Genesis day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar. ... We must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them." (Augustine)
And Origen (as I have heard) believing that time started on the fourth day.

Sorry about that. Augustine and Origen believed the days were instantaneous. Remember, it was Augustine who believed the earth was less than 6,000 years old (see paper for reference). Also keep in mind that while these two men are popular church fathers and were undoubtedly brilliant, they also allegorized so much of Scripture it would be hard to discover the real meaning of numerous texts based on their interpretations.

Not really! But were we trying to steer clear of scientific considerations? I only offer that fossils would not sort themselves by layers in a flood, various creatures having various climbing abilities would not sort them so specifically, and aren't there creatures of all the various climbing abilities in the various layers?

Again, we are not trying to steer clear of science. We just aren't delving into arguments that are only scientific or supposedly scientific. As far as the fossil record is concerned, there are several ways to interpret it. There are difficulties for both uniformitarians and catastrophists. There are numerous fossils that are found where they shouldn't be found (based on one's view). I wouldn't necessarily claim that the climbing creatures would be on the top - I would say that on average, the creatures that were able to make it to high ground (and hold that spot - king of the hill) would be near the top.

Yes, so could it be that "day" is such a usage? Especially when the early church fathers interpreted this very word differently than a 24-hour day, based on other considerations than the apparent, first-glance meaning of the statement. Would they not be willing to consider doing the same with other usages of "day" in these chapters of Genesis?

Only a few church fathers interpreted it this way. I would rather stick with Jesus, Paul, and Peter who believed the events of Genesis 1 - 11 were literal history (Mark 10, 1 Tim. 2: 13 - 14 and 2 Peter 3) than with a few allegorizing church fathers.

But here evening was mentioned with "day," this is an instance where both "day" and "evening" appear, yet the claim was that "occurrence of the word yom in the Old Testament means a literal twenty-four hour day when it is paired with the words evening, morning or night."

Can you prove that this is not an ordinary length day?

Oops, you're right, I thought you meant "ordinal." But "one day" does occur in other places, where it does not refer to a 24-hour period:
Genesis 27:45 Why should I lose both of you in one day?

Genesis 27: 45 is referring to a literal day. In essence, Rebekah is saying to Jacob, "Get out of here before your brother kills you. Why should I lose both of you in one day?" (She would lose Jacob because he was dead and Esau because he would be an outcast for murdering his brother. This would all happen in one day.)

Are we to say because it is normal bodily function, it is therefore good? But God will do away with "food for the stomach, and the stomach for food" (1 Cor. 6:13), indicating that this is not God's final plan for nature, and therefore less than his ultimate goal. So "very good" need not imply "best of all possible worlds," nor need it imply that there were no difficulties or problems in it, this pronouncement therefore need not rule out death in nature.
And "subdue the earth" implies there was a need of some subduing!

I'm quite sure this is the first time I've seen 1 Cor. 6: 13 dragged into this topic. The point of this passage is that we should not be living for earthly desires because those will pass away. Are you saying there will be no eating in heaven? You might want to check out Revelation 19: 9 and possibly 22: 2 again.
Yes, the earth was in need of subduing. There was a whole world out there for Adam and Eve to explore, to learn about, to bring under subjection. This does not mean that there were some wild elements to it that needed to be stamped out.

Do you mean an animal that is not breathing air, if it dies, that is not what the Bible would call death? Then what about fish? Would fish eating other fish be acceptable before the fall? Just trying to clarify here...

For time's sake, please see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...bad_things.asp for a detailed discussion of this.
By the way, Acts 3:21 says that it will be a "restoration" - I think I missed commenting on that in our previous round.

But the point is that there is a direct parallel being made here. So how is it that plant death cannot be considered in an important way, analogous to human death in the Bible? So this would seem to counter the point that plant death and human/animal death are quite different concepts in Scripture, that plants being eaten before the fall would not be classed as death similar to humans dying.

Not at all. It is an analogy. Adam and Eve were instructed to eat plants. Please note - when you pick an apple from an apple tree you are not killing the plant. The same is true for so many other plants. So there may not have been plant death before the Fall. It is highly probable that they fell shortly after the sixth day since they were instructed to reproduce and they both had perfectly functioning bodies. Cain was not conceived before the Fall or else he would not have inherited the sinful nature that he obviously had.

So does the Bible, though, in reference to humans dying:
Job 14:2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure.
See also Ps. 129:6, Jas. 1:11.

Again, all these verses say is that plants wither. It does not say they die. Plants do not have nephesh chayyah.

Well, God saying "for you," seems to imply that this curse was specific to Adam's efforts, rather than a general appearance of thorns.
Because they would now become quite difficult to manage?
Certainly that's possible, but what is most probable?
Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children."
This would imply that there was pain before this time in childbearing, and pain in general before the fall, and also it would seem more probable that the concept of pain was known when this statement was made. Similarly with God saying "you will surely die," this would imply knowledge of what death was, and make it probable that this was something Adam was acquainted with.

Pain is not a bad thing although too much of it can be. If you touch something that is a little too hot to handle, you want pain so that you know to let go of it. They certainly could have been familiar with pain and that is why it would be greatly increased.

Yes, but not if you were referring to an act of creation! That can't be stretched in this way. So we need not be strict literalists, here, "from the beginning," even on the YEC view, is not strictly literal.
Well, no, I hold that Jesus meant "from the beginning of mankind they were made male and female," thus the OEC view need not say Jesus was wrong.

But Jesus didn't say from the beginning of mankind. He said "at the beginning" which only the young earth view can account for. Day six certainly can be considered to be at the beginning of 4,000 years (to the time of Christ) of history. There is no problem here for the YEC - only for the OEC.

But how do we know they were created full-grown? I think the pictures in the Sunday School books may be much mistaken.

But we don't say "This tree has been bearing fruit for the last 15 seconds." To say a tree is bearing fruit implies a more extended time period, a demonstration of the process.

I'm not basing it on pictures in Sunday School, which probably were mistaken. I don't think Adam and Eve were white like my pictures showed in Sunday School. They were probably middle brown. Nevertheless, they were told to be fruitful and multiply - obviously they were capable of understanding that command so they weren't babies. The trees were created already bearing fruit so that the animals and people would have something to eat.

But not without scientific considerations! If we are to take the plain apparent meaning here, without such considerations, then we will conclude that "there was evening and morning" indicates no motion of the earth.

Again, we are not avoiding all scientific considerations. Science definitely should shed light on the discussion.

No, nor can I can find a place where it says the earth orbits the sun...

Nor can I but I can't find any place where it says the sun orbits the earth either. (I know many like to point out Josh. 10 but this was written in observational language. To accuse the author of geocentricity means that every meteorologist who speaks of sunrise and sunset must also be accused of being a geocentrist).

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. As far as a background is concerned, you may perhaps know that you can load your photo in to (say) Photoshop and then adjust brightness and contrast so it is still visible, yet not overshadowing the text...

Thanks Lee for the info on photoshop. I don't have it but I think a friend does. Perhaps I'll have that in the background again in a few days. Also, thanks for the discussion. It's nice to talk to an OEC who can remain civil about things. Not that there aren't others but in my previous attempt to discuss these things it was almost all ad hominem attacks. This is much better.
God bless!
Tim