OEC vs. YEC Debate

If Jason would read his own thread, he would clearly see that this subject has now been debated and that he has lost the debate. Is there anyone else who would like to try to do what Jason has now failed to do?

 

I think Jason has a point. Let me give an example.

If there was some observation made by scientists that indicated that Jesus was not the Christ, would you lose your faith by believing in the observation (even if it was agreed to by all of the secular and many so called Christian scientists) or would you stick to the Word-Of-God as your final authority?

Interpretation of the Word is a different matter, but nobody here has proven the modern non-literal interpretation and that will always be up for debate.

Jason is making the statement that he takes the Bible in what it says as literal and he will not compromise, because if he compromises, then where does it stop? Do we start compromising the gospels if science observes something?

Jason also has another argument on his side and that is the fact that science observation only results in a "theory" not a fact. For example: the early scientists were just absolutely convinced the Earth was in the center of the universe. They "observed" it. It was obvious. Their observation was wrong, and we may find that regardless of how convinced we are of the conclusions of our scientific observations that they may some day be proven wrong.

 

Originally posted by Phillip:

Let’s leave science out of this, as was proposed in the opening post, and look at the Scriptures and see what they do and do not say about the age of the earth.

 

Okay, Craig, fire away and let's see what see what we find. This will be interesting.

 

VERY FUNNY! How can I "fire away" with scriptures to prove my point when my point is that there are no scriptures that tell us the age of the earth?

Phillip, Phillip, Phillip!

 

I am not saying that the first day is longer than 24 hours. The first day is represented in versus 3-5 and I believe to be a very literal 24 hour day. Verses one and two are different. Every day account begins with a Hebrew thing called a Vav(or Waw) Consecutive then the word 'elohim' or God, which translates into "Then God". It could be that the Vav consecutive that starts verse three separates day 1 from verses one and two.
Now, I am in now way implying that the Bible is not literal, I think the creation account in chapter one is extremely literal and is one of the reasons I look at this. I do not believe "Day 1" is longer than any other day. As a matter of fact I do not firmly believe that verses 1 and 2 should be seaparated from the first day, but I can see the relevance of it. Verses one and two could very well be a staging area for creation in versus 3 and beyond. This is still a very literal taking of the Genesis creation account.

Please also give me the verse in Job about the earth being created in six days. I did a search online and on my computer bible(three different versions) and could not find it. I would like to look at the orginal Hebrew words used. Thanks.

 

I was probably wrong. In Job, God describes stretching out the heavens, etc.

Here one:

Exo 20:11 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.

 

You might also consider flipping the proposition and debating it that way as well: "The scriptures teach us that the Earth is old." (and flipping the affirmer and negator, of course).

This idea of a formal one-on-one debate sounds interesting, and it seems that you might have one or two here who would be willing to sign on in opposition. Let us know if anything develops, and where it will be found.

 

So, you are suggesting Craig, for instance takes "young earth" and one of us takes "old earth" and really try to beat the other?

Might be interesting, if we really were to work at it.

 

Great post!

Can we divorce what we find in the physical world from a biblical interpretation?

Yes, but it leaves us with a weak interpretation, subject to error.

Deliberate ignorance or inattention to important factors limits the worthiness of a particular interpretation.

A literal six-day creation was accepted (by most commentators) for thousands of years before information about the physical universe caused us to re-examine the way we interpret the passages.

A thoughtful debate about YEC vs. OEC must include a discussion regarding what factors influence our methods of interpretation. To hold a debate without allowing an OEC to bring up why they interprets a passage in a different way would be like asking them to argue with half their brain tied behind their back.

Rob

 

I did not get saved as a young person because I thought that Christians were nothing but a bunch of intellectually challenged baboons locked up in a cage for the whole world to laugh at. And I never would have gotten saved if some Christians didn't care more about me than they did about some hocus pocus about the earth being 6,000 years old. And I am not the only person in this world who missed out on growing up as a Christian because other Christians made Christianity look like ridiculous nonsense.

To phrase this somewhat differently, I don't care about winning debates—I care that the un-saved world is for the most part staying that way, and one of the reasons why is that they don't want to live locked up in a cage with a bunch of intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia.

One of the primary differences between men and baboons is that God gave men a larger brain. Is it not just possible that God gave us a larger brain so that we could learn about Him through science and come to a fuller knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the Bible? Those who posture science against the Bible just might be posturing themselves against God.

No, I am not calling any of you baboons—I am only saying that to some unsaved individuals who are inclined to think, you may appear to be baboons, and they may come to associate the Gospel with laughable nonsense rather than the death and resurrection of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

If you don’t like this post, please take a minute and pray for me.

 

So you are saying the the Bible must bow down to what so-called "science" says?

 

Paul,

Do you really believe that God intended for us to know that the universe is billions of years old only after some 2000 years have passed?

 

I love it. Great statement.

 

Scott J,

I think all of Genesis can be interpreted literally if the Hebrew words are understood correctly!

 

Scot J,

I really don't know what Craigbythesea believes. What I know is that the Scriptures don't necessarily teach a young universe. Now that is something we can disabuse you of!