If You Changed From YEC to an 'Old Earth' View, Would You Post Your Story Here...

[Calminian]

[b]I find it really curious that YECist latch onto this piece of data-flood stories around the world. When they have a much bigger issue to explain, in the same vein. If God created the earth recently, as per the usual YECist argument, and there was this bottleneck at Noah, and this confusion of the languages at Babel. Then why doesn't the 7 day work week with one day of rest appear anywhere between Gen 1 and Exodus 6 and why doesn't it appear anywhere in the world except Mesopotamia in the 2KBC?s

To me it's quite simple. The 7th day was set aside by God and made holy. It's not surprising this would be something rebellious man would forget about.

I totally disagree that flood legends are all the work of dishonest missionaries.

[lee_merrill]

For me, I was wondering about those dinosaurs too, and the fossils, and I just couldn't step up to God arranging myriad details (colliding galaxies, only a picture-show? Elements on earth with decay times > 5 billion years all gone? Other decaying elements still present? Ice cores with multiplied thousand of rings? and so on). And were are all the modern animal fossils (LGM's point)? And story of the stronger and nimbler animals climber higher in the flood before being fossilized, so they got sorted that way (small animals have to be able to run fast to escape the larger ones) just won't do.

And then "Reasons to Believe" gave me some good input, they do have a good case, though I think they sometimes get off track, and overstate their case. Which I think could even be made some stronger, for example, the point made by the YEC folks that ordinals with "day" only mean 24-hour days, well, they don't (Gen. 27:45, though Reasons to Believe mentions Zech 14:7).

And the correspondences with the fossil record and Genesis really are remarkable, this is a strong apologetic point, which indeed, I mention to various skeptics...

Blessings,
Lee

[Calminian]

Which I think could even be made some stronger, for example, the point made by the YEC folks that ordinals with "day" only mean 24-hour days, well, they don't (Gen. 27:45, though Reasons to Believe mentions Zech 14:7).

I'm not sure who told you this, but it's actually a straw man. YEC's don't say this at all. In fact YECs admit that yom, even in Genesis, is used in non-literal ways (Gen. 2:4 for example). But the fact that it's used in other ways, does not mean you can force onto it any meaning in any context. Maybe this example will help.

Back in my grandfather's day, he used to walk a long way to school every day, and often not get home while it was still day.

Here you have day used in three different ways with three different meanings in one sentence. Did you have any trouble understanding it? Is it clear what it means in each phrase? Since the word clearly has at last 3 meanings, does this mean I can assign any of those meanings to each usage? Of course not. It's very clear what it means in each phrase. YEC's simply believe that context should determine meaning (not naturalistic theories). Ironically, this is what the geocentrists didn't in Galileo's day, and look where it got them. Trying to be popular with modern scientists is never a good method of interpretation.

And the correspondences with the fossil record and Genesis really are remarkable, this is a strong apologetic point, which indeed, I mention to various skeptics...

I think you're going to get a lot of disagreement from theistic evolutionists on this. If you are truly going to try to harmonize science with the Bible, you're going to have to allegorize the days of creation.

[James Peter]

I think this is the unfortunately consequence of compromise. Once you throw out Genesis, the pentateuch is logically next and then rest of the Bible. Pretty soon we have a Bishop Spong version of christianity. This really does speak volumes.

Except it didn't start with throwing out Genesis, it started with examining the Pentateuch as a whole very closely. While I don't support the documentary hypothesis per se I do hold to a hybrid documentary-fragmentary hypothesis which posits several periods of redaction and groups of traditions for which JEDP serve as useful markers.

There are very, very good reasons for saying that Moses did not write the Pentateuch as we know it, not least of which is that whoever wrote Deuteronomy also wrote Joshua and it would be quite impressive for Moses to have written Joshua! There is also plenty of evidence for layers of redaction and competing traditions within the Pentateuch (believe it or not scholars don't advance theories which lack evidence to support them).

Start with seeing what Scripture actually is rather than assuming it is one thing (that it never claims to be) and treating it as such. It certainly doesn't have to leave to a Spongian form of Christianity (I'm certainly still a theist!), although it does certainly not leave you with a viable form of fundamentalism. Thats not such a bad thing really though.

[geochron]

YEC's simply believe that context should determine meaning (not naturalistic theories).

How can you understand the context without an underlying "naturalistic theory" (by which I understand a theory that involves the universe behaving in some regular fashion). In deploying "context" you are assuming that what is described in the Bible is in some way understandable in terms of your experience of the world.

[Calminian]

How can you understand the context without an underlying "naturalistic theory" (by which I understand a theory that involves the universe behaving in some regular fashion).

Not sure what's being asked here. And why would you want a naturalistic explanation of a miracle? Do you want an underlying naturalistic theory for the Resurrection? After all, this event was a scientific impossibility.

In deploying "context" you are assuming that what is described in the Bible is in some way understandable in terms of your experience of the world.

To the contrary, that's what you, and modern TEs, are doing. I'm looking at the text along with its historical and literary context—things the author would have been aware of—things that will give me insight into his thinking (exegesis). You are looking to impose naturalistic theories the writer was never aware of (eisegesis).

[Calminian]

Except it didn't start with throwing out Genesis, it started with examining the Pentateuch as a whole very closely. While I don't support the documentary hypothesis per se I do hold to a hybrid documentary-fragmentary hypothesis which posits several periods of redaction and groups of traditions for which JEDP serve as useful markers.

There are very, very good reasons for saying that Moses did not write the Pentateuch as we know it, not least of which is that whoever wrote Deuteronomy also wrote Joshua and it would be quite impressive for Moses to have written Joshua! There is also plenty of evidence for layers of redaction and competing traditions within the Pentateuch (believe it or not scholars don't advance theories which lack evidence to support them).

Start with seeing what Scripture actually is rather than assuming it is one thing (that it never claims to be) and treating it as such. It certainly doesn't have to leave to a Spongian form of Christianity (I'm certainly still a theist!), although it does certainly not leave you with a viable form of fundamentalism. Thats not such a bad thing really though.

As I've said, this is where the road of compromise leads. Genesis is a myth, the Pentateuch is a myth, and no doubt, Joshua is also. You may not agree with him, but he's being consistent.

[geochron]

To the contrary, that's what you, and modern TEs, are doing. I'm looking at the text along with its historical and literary context—things the author would have been aware of—things that will give me insight into his thinking (exegesis). You are looking to impose naturalistic theories the writer was never aware of (eisegesis).

It's not a contrary. My point isn't that we don't do it. My point is that you do it too. You seek to contrast approaches unreasonably - you are introducing a false distinction between the theories you use to interpret your evidence and the theories we use to interpret ours.

You start with observations of things in the present day world (texts, for instance). These are the only things you can observe. We'll leave aside the naturalistic theories that you use to move from raw observation to your input data.

When you apply "context" you use naturalistic theories in the following ways...

You use naturalistic theories (some so everyday that they don't strike you as such) to infer things the author would have been aware of.

You then use naturalistic theories about how humans interact with things they are aware of to generate texts. You assume that the author responded to his environment in a way we can comprehend based on our experience of how human beings respond to their environments.

You have an over-arching naturalistic theory that applying context is a helpful way of understanding texts.

[Calminian]

Excellent points.

It's not a contrary. My point isn't that we don't do it. My point is that you do it too.

Sure I assume basic things, like the fact this isn't all a dream. I have the basic theistic presupposition that God created an orderly world that works in regular patterns that can be observed, understood and predicted. I also believe this God is not, Himself, confined to these laws and patterns which He set up. He is not subject to scientific laws as Christ demonstrated when He came to earth. If you are a christian these should be your basic presuppositions also. In fact all true christians will agree with me on this.

You seek to contrast approaches unreasonably - you are introducing a false distinction between the theories you use to interpret your evidence and the theories we use to interpret ours.

I'm actually very consistent. I generally believe the world follows naturalistic deterministic patterns except in those places where the Bible conveys a special act of God—and in the case of human free will, BTW, which we may have to get into. Human behavior is often not predictable. Behavioral scientists are confounded by pattern breakers all the time.

But in regard to origins, the only difference between you and me is, I'm factoring in miracles and you are not. I'm not sure why you are not. You claim to be a christian, but for some reason don't want to believe the miraculous events of Genesis. You can't cite science, because science must dismiss them a priori. That would be a circular argument. Thus you must see something in the text alone that leads you to believe it is not literal. Or perhaps you just deny inerrancy but you haven't shared your reasons yet.

You start with observations of things in the present day world (texts, for instance). These are the only things you can observe. We'll leave aside the naturalistic theories that you use to move from raw observation to your input data.

Again, the Bible supports the idea of normative naturalism. We believe normal natural processes to be vastly normative. But we also believe in miracles. They are rare, but they happen and the Bible records many of them for us. Now surly we are in agreement on this?

When you apply "context" you use naturalistic theories in the following ways...

You use naturalistic theories (some so everyday that they don't strike you as such) to infer things the author would have been aware of.

No one denies that we all interpret reality in accordance with our particular world view. But what's interesting is, our world views, being that we are both christians, are the same. We both believe in miracles. We both believe the Bible.

You then use naturalistic theories about how humans interact with things they are aware of to generate texts. You assume that the author responded to his environment in a way we can comprehend based on our experience of how human beings respond to their environments.

Yes we do.

But what you are doing is assuming (a priori) the acts of God in Genesis are not true. We both start with the same world view but you deviate from it when it comes to origins. I don't. I'm consistent. You are not.

[Little Shepherd]

I held to a version of YEC complete with canopy theory growing up. I can't do that in good conscience anymore for 3 reasons:

1) Truth won't contradict truth. The Bible doesn't often speak on scientific matters, but in the places it does it should match up with what we can actually observe. Same with history and archeology.
2) I doubt God would lie to us. He might not spell every detail out, but would He give us purposely deceptive information? If the Bible and the natural world(science; what we observe) are in conflict, and God set up both of them, then He must be lying through one of them. And I seriously doubt that.
3) I haven't come across a YEC argument yet that hasn't sounded incredibly far-fetched. Are there any out there that aren't? Maybe. But as I see it, with what I've been exposed to I can see why insisting on YEC just makes Christians look foolish all for the purpose of holding onto a most unnecessary sacred cow.

And on the other end of the spectrum, I'm most certainly not TE. That seems just as far-fetched to me as YEC, although for different reasons.

[Calminian]

I held to a version of YEC complete with canopy theory growing up. I can't do that in good conscience anymore for 3 reasons:

1) Truth won't contradict truth. The Bible doesn't often speak on scientific matters, but in the places it does it should match up with what we can actually observe.

Except when it comes to science and miracles. I wish christians would get this. Through observation we understand that resurrections after 3 days just don't happen. But the Bible tells us it happened Does that mean it is contradicting truth? No, since God is not confined to scientific laws. You're making the mistake of equating science with truth.

2) I doubt God would lie to us. He might not spell every detail out, but would He give us purposely deceptive information? If the Bible and the natural world(science; what we observe) are in conflict, and God set up both of them, then He must be lying through one of them. And I seriously doubt that.

And thus we come to the very illogical conclusion that all miracles are deceptive. But you have not thought this through. When Jesus created the wine at Cana, the master of the feast was fooled, but only because he had false presuppositions about the wine's origin. He assumed it's origin was natural. Scientists assume the same about our universe.

3) I haven't come across a YEC argument yet that hasn't sounded incredibly far-fetched. Are there any out there that aren't? Maybe. But as I see it, with what I've been exposed to I can see why insisting on YEC just makes Christians look foolish all for the purpose of holding onto a most unnecessary sacred cow.

The church has always wanted to look good in the world's eyes. When geocentrism was the mainstream view, christians flocked to it. Now they flock to naturalism. Why not just believe God and not worry about what the world thinks?

And on the other end of the spectrum, I'm most certainly not TE. That seems just as far-fetched to me as YEC, although for different reasons.

TE's are at least consistent. By trying to play both sides you compromise both science and scripture.

[burgy]

Except when it comes to science and miracles. I wish christians would get this. Through observation we understand that resurrections after 3 days just don't happen. But the Bible tells us it happened Does that mean it is contradicting truth? No, since God is not confined to scientific laws. You're making the mistake of equating science with truth.

Scientists don't generally address unique events. Thus the Cana wine and the resurrection (and many other events) are simply not part of science. If a person tells you the Cana event just could not have happened, he or she is speaking outside the realm of science.

Yes -- science does not seek "truth." Verisimilitude is as close as we strive.

When Jesus created the wine at Cana, the master of the feast was fooled, but only because he had false presuppositions about the wine's origin. He assumed it's origin was natural. Scientists assume the same about our universe.

Good point. But on the last sentence, methodological naturalism is how we scientists work. We just do not assume the non-natural, for if we do, our science necessarily ends. Philosophically, of course, we are free to go ahead.

I wish I had a sample of that Cana wine!

The church has always wanted to look good in the world's eyes. When geocentrism was the mainstream view, christians flocked to it. Now they flock to naturalism. Why not just believe God and not worry about what the world thinks?

Too broad brush. "Beleving God" has 0 to do with one's scientific job.

TE's are at least consistent. By trying to play both sides you compromise both science and scripture.

I tend toward being a TE myself, but recognize (perhaps you do) that it is a religious/philosophical position, having 0 to do with science. As such, I am somewhere between a TE and a PC. I like the latter position better, but I don't claim it on scientific grounds.

[Parmly]

I started really getting into apologetics through argumentation and debate in a different online forum. I was fascinated by apologetics and liked thinking that I could defend my beliefs in God and his creation. I frequently read AiG, The ICR, and Reasons to Believe. I firmly believed that Adam walked with dinosaurs and that our earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years old and wasn't at all ashamed.

After a year or so of defending YEC I made the grand discovery that Intelligent Design =/= YEC. After reading through more of the articles at Reasons to Believe I discovered that there was a stark contrast in their theology as compared to AiG's theology concerning the age of the earth. So I picked up a book by William Dembski and started delving into OEC. It seemed to make more sense so I went with it. But the idea of evolution was still fairly taboo. I liked to think that God snapped and it happened.

Once I got into college and fully understood what evolution was it fascinated me. I wanted it to fit with the Bible. I started looking into books and individuals that weren't repulsed by the idea of evolution. I bought "The Language of God" at Barnes and Noble and Francis Collins convinced me that it wasn't heretical or wrong for me to accept evolution as God's method of creation. Ever since I've had a much higher respect and appreciation for nature, animals, and this grand earth we live upon. I also love Richard Dawkins and find a lot of his videos fascinating. I'm just turned off by his hatred of religion.

[AngelDragon]

I was a YEC for a long time, because I thought that that was the only correct way to interpret Scripture. At about age 16, I began to look up evolution and old earth theories, and concluded that the evidence for an old earth is way too abundant to be rationally denied. I am now an EID theorist. I would not be this way if I believed an old earth contradicted the Bible. To quote John Locke: "I will immediately abandon any opinion of mine as soon as it is shown to be contradictory to infallible Scripture."

[franktalk]

I have become a YEC in the last two years. Before this an OEC. To me the ideas of man are weak and changing all of the time. Any study of science shows that theories change faster than a cow into a whale. Atomic dating was a tough one for me but the assumption that rates were the same back in time is one I cannot accept. So I dropped the atomic dating data in favor of other methods. Once I did that a young earth is very reasonable.

My study in physics changed the way I look at this universe. I think we are in a very good digital simulation of a much greater reality. This goes along with scripture and of course makes the naturalist sciences very limited in my view.

Unlike some YEC I think molecules can self organize to make life. This is as it should be because they were designed that way. How else could molecules in our cells work unguided. God would have to be active in all things. He may be but I allow for the possibility that He jump started the process. I believe in a six day creation and all that it implies. I also think that species adapt quite well. I don't see this as mutually exclusive ideas.

This may not be what you were looking for but it is a statement of my beliefs today.