Issues with the slippery slope argument of literal 7-24 hour creationism

[Dr. Walter]

This statement goes too far Dr. Walter. For example there are and have been many Godly men throughout history that have believed in the Gap Theory. The Gap Theory essentially puts the earth at an old age. Far be it for me to pit these men against Christ as you are doing. You have stepped far over the line this time.

I don't believe in the Gap Theory. I do believe in 7-24 hour creation.
But I must respect the beliefs of others when they do not directly against or contradict the Bible.

I respectfully disagree. Regardless of who the person may be, without respect to person, if anyone, takes a position at any point in their theology which flatly contradicts the words of Christ, they are in principle calling Christ a liar in regard to that aspect of their theology. They may be perfectly orthodox in all other areas of their theology but in that point where they flatly contradict the clear and explicit words of Christ they are by virtue of that contradition calling Christ a liar.

 

[DHK]

I respectfully disagree. Regardless of who the person may be, without respect to person, if anyone, takes a position at any point in their theology which flatly contradicts the words of Christ, they are in principle calling Christ a liar in regard to that aspect of their theology. They may be perfectly orthodox in all other areas of their theology but in that point where they flatly contradict the clear and explicit words of Christ they are by virtue of that contradition calling Christ a liar.

All right, let's get right down to it then.
I believe that all five points of Calvinism flatly contradict the words of Christ. Therefore, because you believe in these points you are in principle calling Christ a liar in regard to your aspect of your theology. You might be perfectly orthodox in your theology, and in other areas of your theology, but in this point you flat contradict the clear and explicit words of Christ you are by virtue of that contradiction (John 5:24; 3:36; Acts 17:30) calling Christ a liar.

As I take your logic on this view that is the only conclusion that I can come to. You are calling Christ a liar.
Does this make sense to you now?

 

[Dr. Walter]

All right, let's get right down to it then.
I believe that all five points of Calvinism flatly contradict the words of Christ. Therefore, because you believe in these points you are in principle calling Christ a liar in regard to your aspect of your theology. You might be perfectly orthodox in your theology, and in other areas of your theology, but in this point you flat contradict the clear and explicit words of Christ you are by virtue of that contradiction (John 5:24; 3:36; Acts 17:30) calling Christ a liar.

As I take your logic on this view that is the only conclusion that I can come to. You are calling Christ a liar.
Does this make sense to you now?

Yes, that makes perfect sense. That is precisely the conclusion I drew when I held to your position on election. That position is legitimate IF the opposing position cannot answer the evidence you present.

In the case of an old earth, I have reposted at least 8 times (if not more) the Biblical evidence that proves that position directly contridicts not merely Christ's explicit TIME words to the contrary but also the other words of those who wrote under inspiration. NNE has attempted to deal with the evidence and NNE has overturned the evidence - they have just IGNORED it. NO BIBILICAL DATA has even been offered in direct response to the evidence I repeatedly posted.

Now, in regard to the issue of election, you will not find me ignoring anything but matter of factly dealing with whatever arguments you can muster and providing BIBLICAL data to support my position. So, our disagreement on election falls into a different category simply because I offer a Biblical based response to your evidence but in the early earth debate NNE has even directly confronted the evidence I offered or offered another defensible interpretation of Christ's explicit TIME words in regard to the origin of man with the origin of creation.

Hence, my charge stands.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes, that makes perfect sense. That is precisely the conclusion I drew when I held to your position on election. That position is legitimate IF the opposing position cannot answer the evidence you present.

In the case of an old earth, I have reposted at least 8 times (if not more) the Biblical evidence that proves that position directly contridicts not merely Christ's explicit TIME words to the contrary but also the other words of those who wrote under inspiration. NNE has attempted to deal with the evidence and NNE has overturned the evidence - they have just IGNORED it. NO BIBILICAL DATA has even been offered in direct response to the evidence I repeatedly posted.

Now, in regard to the issue of election, you will not find me ignoring anything but matter of factly dealing with whatever arguments you can muster and providing BIBLICAL data to support my position. So, our disagreement on election falls into a different category simply because I offer a Biblical based response to your evidence but in the early earth debate NNE has even directly confronted the evidence I offered or offered another defensible interpretation of Christ's explicit TIME words in regard to the origin of man with the origin of creation.

Hence, my charge stands.

Here is the post I have reposted over and over in order to ge anyone to directly confront these evidences. The argument revolves around literal or figurative intepretation of the first chapter of Genesis AND/OR a gap between original creation and the origin of man:




1. In regard to the first issue:


Literal statement or figurative words:

1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.



Literal statement or figuragive words:

And God said, let there be....and it was so - v. 1

And God said, let there be....and it was so- v. 6

And God said, let the....and it was so- v. 9

And God said, let the.....and it was so - v. 11

And God said, let the.....and it was so- v. 14

And God said, let the......- v. 20

And God said, let the.....and it was so- v. 24

And God said, let the.....- v. 26

And God said, let the.... - v. 29


This statement permeates the entire account. How did other Biblical writers view the above characterization that permeates every single day of Genesis One? As a literal or symbolic view

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Ps 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.



Does the following Hebrew parallelism indicate symbolism or emphasis of literal and historical record?

Ps 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.


Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.



Peter spoke of Evolutionists and Theistic Evolutionists after this manner:

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:


God interpreted the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest in a LITERAL HISTORICAL manner by making it the EXAMPLE for humans to apply on a week by week basis:

Ex. 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 FOR in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.



2. In regard to the Second issue (gap) between the origin of creation and the origin of man:

Jesus denied any hermeneutic that allowed for the days in Genesis One to be interpreted as symbolic or figurative of millions and billions of years between the origin of the universe and the origin of the human specie.


Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Gen. 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Every single day of the six days there was a "beginning" of something new on each day, therefore the whole six days of creation could justly be called "the beginning of creation." However, such words cannot possiby be applied to the origin of man if it took place thousands, millions or billions of years after the origin of the earth.

Those who interpret the Genesis record so that billions of years take place between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:26-27 are making Christ a liar. Those who teach evolution or theistic evolution are making Christ a liar. Man did not originate billions of years AFTER the origin of the universe but "AT THE BEGINNING" and thus "FROM THE BEGINNING of the creation of God.

 

[DHK]

Yes, that makes perfect sense. That is precisely the conclusion I drew when I held to your position on election. That position is legitimate IF the opposing position cannot answer the evidence you present.

In the case of an old earth, I have reposted at least 8 times (if not more) the Biblical evidence that proves that position directly contridicts not merely Christ's explicit TIME words to the contrary but also the other words of those who wrote under inspiration. NNE has attempted to deal with the evidence and NNE has overturned the evidence - they have just IGNORED it. NO BIBILICAL DATA has even been offered in direct response to the evidence I repeatedly posted.

Now, in regard to the issue of election, you will not find me ignoring anything but matter of factly dealing with whatever arguments you can muster and providing BIBLICAL data to support my position. So, our disagreement on election falls into a different category simply because I offer a Biblical based response to your evidence but in the early earth debate NNE has even directly confronted the evidence I offered or offered another defensible interpretation of Christ's explicit TIME words in regard to the origin of man with the origin of creation.

Hence, my charge stands.

We don't have any knowledgeable people on the board that believe the Gap Theory and are currently posting. Many of them can put up a fairly good argument. They believe in both an old earth and at least 6-24 hour days as I remember. There is simply a gap between the first and the second day. All in all they are fairly fundamental or literal in their approach to Scripture. The belief in an old earth theory cannot be discounted in the Gap Theory. You may not believe in it, but there are many that do, and may be able to argue it and even defeat your arguments. As I said before these were (and some are still living) were very Godly men that believed this theory, and for good reasons.

 

[Dr. Walter]

We don't have any knowledgeable people on the board that believe the Gap Theory and are currently posting. Many of them can put up a fairly good argument. They believe in both an old earth and at least 6-24 hour days as I remember. There is simply a gap between the first and the second day. All in all they are fairly fundamental or literal in their approach to Scripture. The belief in an old earth theory cannot be discounted in the Gap Theory. You may not believe in it, but there are many that do, and may be able to argue it and even defeat your arguments. As I said before these were (and some are still living) were very Godly men that believed this theory, and for good reasons.

I don't disagree with your assessment of them. I am not charging them with being characteristic liars. I am simply stating that any kind of gap theory anywhere you place it in the Genesis account that separates the origin of man from any other aspect of creation by thousand, millions or billions of years is a direct contradiction to the explicit TIME RELATIONSHIP that Christ demands the origin of man stands in relation to the "beginning" of creation - thus making Christ a liar.

There is no charge here that they are intentionally calling Christ a liar. The charge is that THEIR POSITION makes Christ a liar and whether they hold that position sincerely, ignorantly or whatever, it does not change an untruth into a truth and therefore IN PRINCIPLE they are calling Christ a liar whether they acknowledge it or not.

 

[DHK]

I don't disagree with your assessment of them. I am not charging them with being characteristic liars. I am simply stating that any kind of gap theory anywhere you place it in the Genesis account that separates the origin of man from any other aspect of creation by thousand, millions or billions of years is a direct contradiction to the explicit TIME RELATIONSHIP that Christ demands the origin of man stands in relation to the "beginning" of creation - thus making Christ a liar.

There is no charge here that they are intentionally calling Christ a liar. The charge is that THEIR POSITION makes Christ a liar and whether they hold that position sincerely, ignorantly or whatever, it does not change an untruth into a truth and therefore IN PRINCIPLE they are calling Christ a liar whether they acknowledge it or not.

Bolded is mine.
That is slander. It is a charge that is not true. It is a stand that people like Dr. Bob Jones Sr., Dr. Bob Jones Jr., C.I. Scofield, would never never take. They would never say that Christ is a liar as you infer. You have violated the BB rules and continue to do so. You have inferred that they call Christ a liar, and have done this on more than one occasion. This type of behavior is not tolerated.
These men have done more for world evangelism and the spread of the gospel then you will ever accomplish in your lifetime.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Bolded is mine.
That is slander. It is a charge that is not true. It is a stand that people like Dr. Bob Jones Sr., Dr. Bob Jones Jr., C.I. Scofield, would never never take. They would never say that Christ is a liar as you allege. You have violated the BB rules and continue to do so. Not only do you say that they call Christ a liar, you say that they intentionally do so. You err. This type of behavior is not tolerated.
These men have done more for world evangelism and the spread of the gospel then you will ever accomplish in your lifetime.

I don't know how you understood the phrase you placed in bold. My intent behind that statement is to say that I am not making a charge against anyone for intentionally calling Christ a liar. I don't believe they are intentionally calling Christ a liar in regard to the subject. I am denying they are intentionly saying Jesus lied. I am only say that IN PRINCIPLE their POSITION makes Christ a liar in regard to this matter.

If you understood me to say anything other than that, then, if it was my fault in making myself clear then I take full blame but I had no intent to charge anyone with intentional lying but the very opposite.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't know how you understood the phrase you placed in bold. My intent behind that statement is to say that I am not making a charge against anyone for intentionally calling Christ a liar. I don't believe they are intentionally calling Christ a liar in regard to the subject. I am denying they are intentionly saying Jesus lied. I am only say that IN PRINCIPLE their POSITION makes Christ a liar in regard to this matter.

If you understood me to say anything other than that, then, if it was my fault in making myself clear then I take full blame but I had no intent to charge anyone with intentional lying but the very opposite.

I readily acknowledge that there are a number of godly men who disagree with my position in regard to the "gap" theory in Genesis chapter one. I admit they are sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to present anything other than what they sincerely beleived to be the truth as they saw it.

I am getting old and battle weary and thus my tolerance level may not have been what it should have been in this discussion. I apologize to all who believe that I have been intolerant and took personal offence because of that intolerance. My intolerance was in reality addressed directly to what I perceived as error, to a position, not toward the person of anyone on this forum.

 

[billwald]

>This is my statement of faith:

>The Nicene Creed

Mine, also. Note that there is no need to mention the Bible.

 

[billwald]

>I believe that all five points of Calvinism flatly contradict the words of Christ.

Which of the writings of Calvin have YOU read?

 

[DHK]

>I believe that all five points of Calvinism flatly contradict the words of Christ.

Which of the writings of Calvin have YOU read?

I believe that addiction to heroin will kill you.

Do you.
IF yes, Have you tried it yet? I suppose you will never know unless you try it, right?

 

[Anastasia]

I am too tired to find the post I was going to reply to a while ago, but I will add that there is something to be said for having the humility to listen to more learned men who were closer to the time of Christ and to earlier thought who read the same scripture that you and I do, perhaps even in the original language, unless at least a few of us and a lot of society in general, and consider what they said in understanding scripture.

I am sure many will still disagree and tell me that scripture should be read at face value without regard for any other sort of guide because anything but your face value reading could not possibly be right no matter what the qualifications of the other source that still respects scripture and adds context might say. It's ok. Really.

 

[mandym]

To me, the same person that says that we must believe only a literal interpretation of some things in contradiction to scientific observation also denies the gifts that God has given us. .

This assumes that "scientific observation" is infallible. Only the Word of God is.

 

[DHK]

I am sure many will still disagree and tell me that scripture should be read at face value without regard for any other sort of guide because anything but your face value reading could not possibly be right no matter what the qualifications of the other source that still respects scripture and adds context might say. It's ok. Really.

As I read the NT, I find evidence that Jesus read or believed the OT at face value. I think that I should follow his example. Don't you?

 

[Gup20]

It does equal to a denial of Christ as the Son of God. Christ quoted from Genesis 2 and treated it as historical and actual and identified marriage as something instituted "from the beginning." You should study this phrase "from the beginning" as used by Christ. If Genesis 2 does not deal with "the beginning" but Genesis 1:1 does deal with the beginning some billions of years earlier then Christ is misrpresenting the truth.

Can you show me the passage in Genesis 2 that you are referring to? From my understand of the Genesis and creation historical account in Genesis, the passage you are referring to is in Genesis 1, not Genesis 2.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,​

Note that every verse in Genesis 1 starts with the word "and". This is because the first letter of each verse is the Hebrew letter waw. It is a conjunction that indicates the word and, or inclusion. So every verse literally relates back to the first verse ... in the beginning, God created... the heavens and the earth... and the sun.... and the plants... etc.

It is like saying I went to the store and the gym and then came home. The word "and" forces an inclusion in the original action. We know by the word "and" that all of them relate to "i went". If it said I went to the store, or the gym, or just came home, then the language is non-inclusive.

So when Jesus asks, have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, he is literally quoting from Genesis 1:1 and 1:27 as if it is one contiguous statement.

It does mean you reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God ,as Christ quoted the genesis account of marriage between only TWO humans that God created "from the beginning." Either he is the omnicient Son of God or he is the greatest liar or lunatic the world has every known.

This statement is entirely inappropriate. How can you question someone else's salvation like this? I'm pretty sure this is a violation of the forum rules.

It does mean rejecting scripture as inspired by God because Paul identified Adam as a real historical person as the HEAD of the human race and the "FIRST MAN" r and explicitly traces all humanity as originating from this one man (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:44-46).

Once again, very inappropriate. You stand in judgment here of someone's heart and faith. I doubt Anastasia rejects scripture. You would be much wiser to show where the logic of the position breaks down rather than to levy personal attacks.

 

[12strings]

Originally Posted by Anastasia

To me, the same person that says that we must believe only a literal interpretation of some things in contradiction to scientific observation also denies the gifts that God has given us. .

I think it is very difficult to prove CONCLUSIVELY that a scientific observation DEFINITELY contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. There are scientific observations that would SEEM to argue for not holding to a literal 6-day creation, but I have yet to see one that absolutely makes it impossible to hold. God could have created the world with age just like Adam, he could have created light from stars millions of light-years away in transit so we could see the light immediately without it traveling for millions of years. (or even as my pastor believes, that God created layers of fossils from dead animals that never actually lived...I personally think it was the flood). We do know God created dirt for plants to grow in. What is dirt made of? Dead plant & animal material!

The opposite is also true. It is very difficult to prove CONCLUSIVELY that there is not some kind of gap between Gen. 1:1 & 1:2; or how long the first 3 days were before the sun appeared.

 

[12strings]

As I read the NT, I find evidence that Jesus read or believed the OT at face value. I think that I should follow his example. Don't you?

True, regarding Jonah, Noah, Adam... But Jesus also said John the Baptist was Elijah! That's not very literal.

 

[DHK]

True, regarding Jonah, Noah, Adam... But Jesus also said John the Baptist was Elijah! That's not very literal.

Why not? He came in the spirit and power of Elijah, and thus the saying.

 

[Gup20]

Why I oppose the slippery slope argument against non-literal seven day creationism:

This is not meant to argue for or against literal seven-day creationism. It is merely meant to say that the slippery slope argument needs to be kept not in fear of a dispute between scripture and science (as the truth and observable truth do not have to conflict), but should be expressed with recognition of the various ways that God is revealed in this universe and a willingness to match science with science or consider the facts around it. I was listening to an argument on the radio about creationism the other day also was also seeking to be able to put into words why this is something I feel strongly about.

Consider that creationists and evolutionists have the same "facts." Facts are facts regardless of the interpretation. Science is science regardless of religious persuasion. The science that brings us computers, cars, and medicines is very different from the "science" of origins. Science properly defined is the realm of being able to repeat an experiment and observe the results. But consider - concerning origins, we cannot duplicate the conditions prior to creation (or the big bang if you believe in that), nor has anyone observed it, nor can anyone repeat it. Origins falls quite outside the realm of science.

The reason creationists and evolutionists (or even gap theorists) come to different conclusions is not because they have different facts, or different science to use to collect or interpret those facts. It is because the underlying assumptions or worldview they have before they ever look at the facts colors the way they see the facts. Therefore, the only way to really determine which view is the correct view is to examine the underlying assumptions (or you might say the axioms) of each viewpoint and compare them.

The fact that we believe the Bible comes down to personal experience, reasons outside of the Bible, or a circular reasoning that it is true because the Bible says it is true. (While after establishing the validity of the Scripture, a scripture says so reason is thus affirmed, beforehand, this is insufficient to stand on its own.) Feelings can lie, so a reason that it feels right doesn’t entirely stand on its own. An external validation does hold water, because God demonstrates His promises at times in our lives and with scientific/archeological evidence of what has happened. Even out cannon of scripture was decided by people (though after a lot of prayer and analysis). Thus the Bible that we have today is not established simply by the Bible but also by outside sources that also validate its authority.

Let me ask you a question - how do you know your memory of your experiences is reliable? How do you know what you think happened actually happened? If our brains are truly the result of millions of years of random chance processes who's goal was survivability rather than truth, how can you possibly hope to rely on it not to lie to you when it suits your fleshly survival? In an old-age worldview, what basis do you have to trust your experiences?

To me, the same person that says that we must believe only a literal interpretation of some things in contradiction to scientific observation also denies the gifts that God has given us. It also denies things that prove scripture right, and seems to suggest a circular reasoning that seems almost fearful of any observation that truth may not fit with one’s own preconceptions. The dispute this better would be to offer scientific and social science/humanities evidence for a literal seven-day, 24-hour creation. Otherwise, this offers its own slippery slope that we deny basic observations about God and risks blinding us to new understandings about God and how He interacts in the world.

Keep in mind, circular reasoning is a fallacy only so long as we are not talking about an absolute truth. An absolute truth, or an absolute authority must necessarily prove itself because it is the absolute highest authority.... it cannot rely on anything greater than itself to verify itself or it is not an absolute truth.

for more on the ideas behind this post, see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/nuclear-strength-apologetics/nuclear-strength-apologetics

This link is a video by Dr. Jason Lisle, Phd (astrophysics) and he gives an irrefutable argument for creation