OEC vs. YEC Debate

Well, Jason, it looks like Craig is out, but Paul33 might be interested.

Personally, I don't think YEC vs OEC is of that great importance in the larger scheme of things (though believing God's ex nihilo creative acts and rejecting evolution is). Some of my best teachers were "gap theorists" (which I also reject). It was nice, though - seemed to allow anything unexplainable to be dumped in the gap! But I would like to see the Biblical reasons for the two debated. Even if no one is interested in a formal debate, please consider starting a thread to make your points on why a YEC.

Concerning flipping the debate proposition, I didn't mean one or the other, but both. I know that would cover a lot of the same ground, but not exactly. In the second proposition, the affirmer would be making an argument for old earth, not merely saying young earth is wrong. Thanks.

 

yabba,

Good points. You must have read Gorman Gray's book, "The Age of the Universe."

 

Philip,

"For in six days" is not a literal translation of the Hebrew. The Hebrew literally says, "For six days the LORD made the sky and the land, the sea, and all that is in them" (Ex. 20:11). Exactly what Genesis 1:3ff says.

God did (made, fashioned, etc.) the sky on day two, the land on day three, and the sea on day three. On day five he filled the seas with living creatures and the sky with birds. And on day six he filled the land with animals and man.

God took a barren and empty earth (earth's foundation) and filled it in seven literal 24 hour days, just like Ex. 20:11 says. Of course, on day seven God rested, so God actually filled the earth in six days.

 

Jason,

Post a scripture that you personally believe teaches that the earth is only thousands of years old and we can debate the correct interpretation of the passage without bringing in the evidence of science and see if even without the scientific evidence the young earth interpretation can be conclusively refuted. But of, course, interpreting the Holy Scriptures without considering all of the relevant evidence can not be expected to result in the most accurate possible interpretation, but can merely be expected to establish whether or not the Scriptures teach that the earth is young.

And since we hold that the Bible says nothing about the age of the earth, your opponents will not be arguing that the Bible teaches an old earth, but merely refuting the concept that it teaches a young earth.

My purpose for doing this is that through a knowledge of the truth others may come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savor, so let’s approach this honestly, fairly, and objectively to the best of our individual abilities with the help of God, refraining from all personal attacks.

 

Jason, here is an interesting article by Tony Warren - The Biblical Timeline of Creation. Tony should be considered YEC & 6 literal days, but with his interesting (unique? I'd never heard it before) chronology, goes back much further than most Young Earth people I've ever heard. Thought you and others who follow this closely might find the article interesting. IIRC, he comes up with about 15,000 years.

 

I hold to an undefined age of the universe and a young earth biosphere because I believe the Hebrew literally teaches this.

The frustration is that many YEC simply won't let the Hebrew text speak for itself. They have let faulty translation dictate their thinking.

Whose to say that Moses didn't understand the age of the universe to be undefined or potentially old? Just because most Christian commentators believed in a YEC viewpoint doesn't mean that belief carries weight.

Faulty interpretations, no matter how long they are held, need to be discarded when more convincing exegesis comes along. Gorman Gray has provided that exegesis.

There really is no need for a debate. Read his book and come to your own conclusions. For those of us who know enough Hebrew to look at the original languages, Gorman Gray's conclusions are all the more impressive! This from a guy who doesn't know Hebrew but used the tools of the trade that any English speaking person can use!

 

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? </font>[/QUOTE]Prov 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
NASU

Dan 12:4
4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."
NASU


Its not that He intended we take exactly 2000 years but that He left it for us to find on our own in whatever time it took us.

 

God didn't conceal anything. He said the Holy Spirit hovered. He didn't say how long.

 

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.

He certainly could not have hovered over it for longer than one day, if you take Exodus 20:11 literally. So, we accept Genesis and make Exodus an allegory now?

 

Jason Gastrich wrote,

There are many rapture doctrines that were invented by highly confused men and women and children beginning in the late 1820's, but the doctrine of the post-trib rapture that was taught in the ante-Nicene church is still being taught in Baptist seminaries around the world. As for the doctrine that was dreamed up by 15-year-old Margaret McDonald or one of her teen-age tongues-speaking girl friends and popularized by J. N. Darby and is now commonly known as the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture, that doctrine has NEVER been accepted by the large majority of Christians and I have never found that doctrine so much as mentioned in any commentary on the Greek text of any book of the New Testament, and I have read many of them. Nor, of course, does one find it in the Bible.

It is not God who conceals truth—it is Satan and his followers who conceal and distort the truth.

 

Apostasy CONCEALS truth. God REILLUMINATES it "again". (See verification throughout the OT.)

The apostasy of amillenialism crept into the professing church, just as the apostasy of a POSTTRIB RAPTURE for the body of Christ. They REJECTED Pauline teaching, two of which are premillenialism and a pretribulation rapture. (See 1 Tim.1, 2 Tim.1-2)

The Lord STILL DOES what he ALWAYS has done. He "again" reilluminated Pauline dispensationalism through Darby, Scofield, and Larkin with a "systematized" statement. Athenian insanity from "quackists" think Darby's system is that of a "prophecy" by a 15 year old Scottish girl. They couldn't prove that false, treacherous, blasphemous statement NO MORE than anyone could prove all of the quackists' mothers were naked go go dancers from downtown New Orleans.

Too bad that the "educated" are full of ignorant foolishness.

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. (1 Cor.1)

 

Here's what I'm seeing in Exodus 20:11
The Hebrew reads "For six days made Yahweh the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them....". The key word here is "made", the Hebrew word used is 'asah' meaning "to make". God 'asah'ed everything he didn't 'bara'. In Genesis 1, God only 'bara'ed in verse one and verse 27, when he made man. Every thing else he 'asah'ed. I say that to say this, it can very well be literally taken that God 'asah'ed the sky(also a very legitimate translation of 'shamayim') and the land(very legitimate translation of 'erets') like he did in day two and three, while he 'bara'ed the heavens and earth at an earlier time before the six day period. The usage of different verbs leads one to believe these are two different events. Again, very literal.

Let me say this now before I get too wrapped up in this. God is the sovereign Lord of all and whatever He does is right and true. I do not pretend to know without a doubt the timeframe that God took in forming the earth and everything else. I believe firmly that God spent six 24 hour days creating land, sea, sky and everything else and rested on the seventh. I believe that verses 1 and 2 of Genesis chapter 1 could very well be included in the first day, but I see also that they could be separated out. I am taking the separated viewpoint for this discussion, mainly because it is the least agrred with here, but also because it's fun and informative to do research into the orginal language.

 

Nope, these points I came to under my own study, research and discussions. I might pick the book up now though just to see. I am not firm on my standpoint here but I do enjoy discussing this, as long as it doesn't become too heated or belittling.
We must all remember that young earth, old earth, or who cares how old the earth is we are all Christians trying to better understand God's word.

 

Carl,

Please explain to us, what John 5:27-29; 6:39,40,44, 54 of "last Day" means? Does Jesus actual teaching of 'a thousand years' anywhere in the four gospels while He was on earth with his disciples for three years?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

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?
</font>[/QUOTE]And why does the thought of using the Scriptures only intimidate you Craig? There have been plenty of Godly men that have done so in the past. One of the more well known ones was Archbishop Ussher, who added up the genealogies and came up with the date of creation as being 4,004 B.C. Since then others have done basically the same thing adjusting his date by a few years taking into account some missing generations. All in all, using the Scriptures only (a good way to go), the earth could not have been created more than 10,000 years B.C. That is a far cry from ten million or even billion, as some evolutionists attempt to put the universe at.
DHK

 

The bolded statement above is ....well a very bold statement. I don't know if you've read the whole thread or not but you should. I am not saying I'm right and your wrong, because honestly I'm not sure. But looking at the original Hebrew there is sound cause to think Gensis 1:1-2 is before or at least outside of 3-5(Day 1). The use of two different Hebrew words for "made" or "created" is one. Could God have formed and created everything in six days and that happened only 5000-6000 yrs ago? Absolutely. Could he have formed the earth for however long and then created the land, sea, sky, etc in six days 5000-6000 yrs ago? Absolutley. What I'm saying is the literal tranlation of the Hebrew is not nearly as clear cut as our English translations.

 

Exodus 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.

The statement is very clear. It needs no clarification. God made everything in six literal 24 hour days. I choose to believe the Bible. He emphasizes the point by saying "and all that in them is."

One should also consider why the Jews "keep holy the Sabbath day," even unto this day. It is the seventh day of a week of days, each day being 24 hours in length. It would not make sense for the Sabbath to be a 24 hour day and all or even some of the others not 24 hour days. Logic here demands that God made all the days alike. "The morning and the evening were the first day," "the morning and the evening were the second day," etc. There is intelligent design where God created the earth, the universe and all that is therein.

The word for day, "yom" when used with a numeral, never refers to anything else but a twenty-four hour day.
The case for a literal 6-day creation of 24 hours each, is a very strong one.
DHK

 

With 4 pages, would someone just step up and debate the guy.

 

Amen, John 6:63! If it's that easy, I don't see why they don't just jump in.

I looked back over Tony Warren's "Biblical Timeline of Creation" and he came up with 13008 years from creation to our "1996" (probably the year he wrote it). I think that is probably the limit of how far anyone could go using the Scriptures only. Using the Scriptures and the gap theory in conjunction, could allow any undetermined number of years, I suppose.