Young Earth vs. Old Earth

[Deacon]

The whole idea that we are to "have agreement with the scientific community" is a dangerous and flawed one. Science, which is limited by human reason, and very limited knowledge, is at the mercy of the Word of God. Not the other way around. The fact that anyone would even allow this as a foot in the door to reinterpret the text, is scary.

Three things in response:

(1) It seems strange to me that you denigrate 'human reason' when your profile describes an you as having an interest in "systematic theology", which is a systematized process of studying scripture based upon "human reason".

(2) The Galileo affair occurred about 500 years ago.
It seems that some in the evangelical church still haven't learned from it.

The Catholic church proclaimed, "the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture" (Pope Paul V - 1616).

Both scripture and nature are from God and both need to be interpreted; both science and theology are progressive in nature.

Science and theology can work hand-in-hand to help us formulate an accurate hermeneutical method.

(3) Regarding the long ages of the patriarchs: the problem is unrelated to the age of the earth.

An old-earth creationist may handle this difficulty the very same way a young earth creationist might.

What is obvious is that the genealogies are not intended to be used as a chronology as you seem to suggest.

Rob

 

[quantumfaith]

Three things in response:

(1) It seems strange to me that you denigrate 'human reason' when your profile describes an you as having an interest in "systematic theology", which is a systematized process of studying scripture based upon "human reason".

(2) The Galileo affair occurred about 500 years ago.
It seems that some in the evangelical church still haven't learned from it.

The Catholic church proclaimed, "the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture" (Pope Paul V - 1616).

Both scripture and nature are from God and both need to be interpreted; both science and theology are progressive in nature.

Science and theology can work hand-in-hand to help us formulate an accurate hermeneutical method.

(3) Regarding the long ages of the patriarchs: the problem is unrelated to the age of the earth.

An old-earth creationist may handle this difficulty the very same way a young earth creationist might.

What is obvious is that the genealogies are not intended to be used as a chronology as you seem to suggest.

Rob

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Science, in its "purity" should be somewhat analagous to "systematic theology", that it is, it should be seeking to understand "natural truth". There are many practitioners in the sciences while maintaining a steady, consistent and growing faith in their creator and redeemer.

 

[Havensdad]

Three things in response:

(1) It seems strange to me that you denigrate 'human reason' when your profile describes an you as having an interest in "systematic theology", which is a systematized process of studying scripture based upon "human reason".

No, I am denigrating human reason that does not recognize its own sinfulness and propensity for error. That does not recognize that their is a higher, infallible source, that all other sources of knowledge must bow to...

(2) The Galileo affair occurred about 500 years ago.
It seems that some in the evangelical church still haven't learned from it.

The Catholic church proclaimed, "the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture" (Pope Paul V - 1616).

False argument. The Pope was not actually getting what he said from scripture, but from Aristotelian physics. You are actually making the same error the Catholics made.... making "science" an authority equal to scripture. This is also the same error that led them to the doctrine of transubstantiation. The Church thought that they had to incorporate "science" into the scriptures, and so when the science moved on, they were left with so-called "infallible" papal decrees that they had to defend.

They should have trusted the scriptures to begin with, not science and flawed human reasoning.

Both scripture and nature are from God and both need to be interpreted; both science and theology are progressive in nature.

Scripture is not progressive at all. REVELATION was progressive, but the canon closed nearly 2,000 years ago.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says scripture is sufficient. Thus, science is not needed.

Secondly, "natural revelation" according to Romans 1, can do nothing more than condemn a man for unbelief. There is no such thing as positive "natural revelation" that is authoritative in its decrees. SCRIPTURE is infallible and inerrant...human eyes, ears, and minds are not.

Science and theology can work hand-in-hand to help us formulate an accurate hermeneutical method.

This is probably the most frightful thing I have ever heard. You have in effect just elevated science ABOVE scripture.

Funny, how you assert that scripture must bow to human logic and reason, when Scripture asserts that human logic and reason must bow to scripture....

(3) Regarding the long ages of the patriarchs: the problem is unrelated to the age of the earth.

An old-earth creationist may handle this difficulty the very same way a young earth creationist might.

What is obvious is that the genealogies are not intended to be used as a chronology as you seem to suggest.

Rob

However they are "meant to be used" (something that cannot possibly be known), when the Bible says "he lived 900 years," then that individual lived 900 years.

So, this puts an absolute limit on the age of the earth, that does not come close to approaching 1 million years...much less billions.

 

[Deacon]

Brother the fundamental flaw in your argument is that you don't seem to distingush the difference between scripture and theology - nature from science.

Rob

 

[Havensdad]

Brother the fundamental flaw in your argument is that you don't seem to distingush the difference between scripture and theology - nature from science.

Rob

Not so. I DO distinguish it. But the flaw in your argument is that you believe plainly written scripture must be "interpreted" by science. Scripture is authoritative; NEITHER the fallen corrupt creation (a.k.a "nature"), NOR human reason (science) is authoritative.

 

[preachinjesus]

Perhaps the larger question concerns whether our fallen human reason is able to comprehensively understand the depth and breadth of the biblical revelation concerning creation at all.

Confining the language to one specific, temporally isolated construct might not be what actually took place.

In other words: what if Scripture explains perfectly the act of Creation and all its glory but we, fallen creatures, fail to comprehensively understand it?

 

[quantumfaith]

Perhaps the larger question concerns whether our fallen human reason is able to comprehensively understand the depth and breadth of the biblical revelation concerning creation at all.

Confining the language to one specific, temporally isolated construct might not be what actually took place.

In other words: what if Scripture explains perfectly the act of Creation and all its glory but we, fallen creatures, fail to comprehensively understand it?

Excellent observation!!!!!

 

[Greektim]

Not possible. If I tell you "I made this in 6 days" and then give you a detailed genealogical record, with dates, this FIXES the date.

As for Sailhammers view, the idea that "beginning" is an "undefined period of time" is absurd. Reshith is not a period of time at all. It means the first of something, or the beginning of something. In other words, the very first thing God did, was make the heavens and the earth. The text then goes on to describe that it was done in six days.

The whole idea that we are to "have agreement with the scientific community" is a dangerous and flawed one. Science, which is limited by human reason, and very limited knowledge, is at the mercy of the Word of God. Not the other way around.The fact that anyone would even allow this as a foot in the door to reinterpret the text, is scary. This is exactly what guys like Rudolph Bultmann did. Let's just apply that SAME hermeneutic throughout the Bible...then you get no miracles, no resurrection, no supernatural activity...you get Moses walking across a sandbar in the Reed sea...you get rivers turning, not to blood, but infused with sediments from a nearby mountain.... The TEXT is king, and the text absolutely precludes an Old Earth.

Besides this, there are literally thousands of credentialed scientists that do not believe in an old earth...

I daresay you are half the Hebrew scholar Sailhamer is nor do you fully understand his point about "beginning". He did give examples of other places in Scripture where the word is used as an undefined period of time. Its not absurd unless you cling to the English rendering as your final authority. Plus, Sailhamer's view is that 1:1 is the creation of the world and that 1:2ff. is the preparation of the gard of eden (promised land). LIke I said, for those who put stock and value into biblical theology over systematic, this view has much to commend it. You quick dismissal shows you didn't give it the time of day to even consider it. You are so stuck in your view that you can't even consider that your interpretation may be wrong. Sailhamer's view advocates a 24 hr day scenario in Gen. 1. But he is arguing that the 6 days are not of creation but of preparation for habitation. God is preparing the Garden/temple for humans. His case is exegetically strong. And this isn't a case of demythologizing the text and removing the supernatural. It is still advocating God as the source of all things... but it is a change in how it has been understood the past many years.

 

[asterisktom]

Not so. I DO distinguish it. But the flaw in your argument is that you believe plainly written scripture must be "interpreted" by science. Scripture is authoritative; NEITHER the fallen corrupt creation (a.k.a "nature"), NOR human reason (science) is authoritative.

:thumbs:

This has to do with keeping the distinctions separate between ministerial uses and magisterial uses. Science must always be subordinate to Scripture, and that for several reasons.

Science keeps changing (rather our perception of it).
We are told that the Bible is sufficient to all things that pertain to godliness, that it makes us thoroughly equipped, etc.
The things that touch on our origin are included in those things of God which are only taught by the Spirit of God. It is not surprising that some scientists overlook this.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not so. I DO distinguish it. But the flaw in your argument is that you believe plainly written scripture must be "interpreted" by science. Scripture is authoritative; NEITHER the fallen corrupt creation (a.k.a "nature"), NOR human reason (science) is authoritative.

:wavey:Good job here...you are correctly putting scripture where it belongs..as our only rule for faith and practice....

3Through 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.[/QUOTE]

3 By faith we understand that the [e]worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Science is limited by God.

 

[quantumfaith]

3Through 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.[/QUOTE]



Science is limited by God.

THIS is true

 

[Greektim]

[/I][/B]

THIS is true

And to a certain extent, so too is our understanding of Scripture. Interpretation is limited, although I'm not sure whose feet to cast the blame. However, I think there are plausible interpretations of Scripture that account for things differently than we have done in years past. And so if we start w/ a correct interpretation, of course we will find that science is in agreement since both are God's revelation and would not contradict (science in the sense of what it studies - creation).

 

[revmwc]

Thank you. I got a number of recommendations and appreciate it. I think I am gonna stick to a book by John MacArthur called "A battle for the beginning" if I can get a copy of it someday.

The Beginnings under Attack is excellent. Bill Sheffield

Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris

These books can be found online and are exceelent for Young Earth support. Keep in mind Dr. Morris at one point in his career was an avid evolustionist. A Professor at Rice University who loved to challenge young Christians views. He came to not only turn from evolutionist teaching but to forming the Institute for Creation Research and he now expouses the young earth belief.

 

[mandym]

And to a certain extent, so too is our understanding of Scripture. Interpretation is limited, although I'm not sure whose feet to cast the blame. However, I think there are plausible interpretations of Scripture that account for things differently than we have done in years past. And so if we start w/ a correct interpretation, of course we will find that science is in agreement since both are God's revelation and would not contradict (science in the sense of what it studies - creation).

Science is not God's revelation. Creation is science it not.

 

[quantumfaith]

And to a certain extent, so too is our understanding of Scripture. Interpretation is limited, although I'm not sure whose feet to cast the blame. However, I think there are plausible interpretations of Scripture that account for things differently than we have done in years past. And so if we start w/ a correct interpretation, of course we will find that science is in agreement since both are God's revelation and would not contradict (science in the sense of what it studies - creation).

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup.....I think?

 

[Greektim]

Science is not God's revelation. Creation is science it not.

Notice... that is why I qualified what I meant in the parenthesis. Science studies natural revelation. So combative...

 

[Greektim]

I daresay you are half the Hebrew scholar Sailhamer is nor do you fully understand his point about "beginning". He did give examples of other places in Scripture where the word is used as an undefined period of time. Its not absurd unless you cling to the English rendering as your final authority. Plus, Sailhamer's view is that 1:1 is the creation of the world and that 1:2ff. is the preparation of the gard of eden (promised land). LIke I said, for those who put stock and value into biblical theology over systematic, this view has much to commend it. You quick dismissal shows you didn't give it the time of day to even consider it. You are so stuck in your view that you can't even consider that your interpretation may be wrong. Sailhamer's view advocates a 24 hr day scenario in Gen. 1. But he is arguing that the 6 days are not of creation but of preparation for habitation. God is preparing the Garden/temple for humans. His case is exegetically strong. And this isn't a case of demythologizing the text and removing the supernatural. It is still advocating God as the source of all things... but it is a change in how it has been understood the past many years.

I just re-read this and saw how pretentious and unkind it sounded. Forgive me. I just mean to emphasize that Sailhamer is no Hebrew slouch. I would have a hard time saying his understanding of a term is "absurd." My lack of Hebrew acumen forces me to look at the experts and count their opinion as more informed than my own. Try not to discount it outright before you hear him out. His interpretation has much to commend it.

 

[Deacon]

Not so. I DO distinguish it. But the flaw in your argument is that you believe plainly written scripture must be "interpreted" by science. Scripture is authoritative; NEITHER the fallen corrupt creation (a.k.a "nature"), NOR human reason (science) is authoritative.

Strict adherents might say that Sola scriptura demands that all other authorities are subordinate to scripture and are to be corrected by the written word of God

…but John Calvin was quite a bit more accommodating:

There are innumerable evidences both in heaven and on earth that declare his wonderful wisdom; not only those more recondite matters for the closer observation of which astronomy, medicine, and all natural science are intended, but also those which thrust themselves upon the sight of even the most untutored and ignorant persons, so that they cannot open their eyes without being compelled to witness them. Indeed, men who have either quaffed or even tasted the liberal arts penetrate with their aid far more deeply into the secrets of the divine wisdom. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Westminster, 1960, I, v, 2, p. 53.

You’re concerned because you believe that old-earth creationism demotes scripture and makes it subservient to science.

I would say that nature is a servant, not a master to scripture.

Christians of faith recognize that nature and the supernatural together constitute the one system of God.

Rob

 

[mandym]

Strict adherents might say that Sola scriptura demands that all other authorities are subordinate to scripture and are to be corrected by the written word of God

…but John Calvin was quite a bit more accommodating:

You’re concerned because you believe that old-earth creationism demotes scripture and makes it subservient to science.

I would say that nature is a servant, not a master to scripture.

Christians of faith recognize that nature and the supernatural together constitute the one system of God.

Rob

The minute we say we must believe scripture says something because science has determined something then scripture is beholden to science.

 

[quantumfaith]

The minute we say we must believe scripture says something because science has determined something then scripture is beholden to science.

I think mandym, that the point is not "what does scrpture say" but rather does it say was WE say it says. I could be wrong, but that is my take on what was said.