Young Earth vs. Old Earth

[revmwc]

I believe the O.P. was can you recommend a book that supports the young earth theory not to start a debate about the subject or books

 

[preachinjesus]

I believe the O.P. was can you recommend a book that supports the young earth theory not to start a debate about the subject or books

Yep, and a couple of us have tried. :thumbsup:

 

[mcdirector]

The bottom line is that God created everything, and to tell the truth, that is about all you or I know about the matter.

so true!
.
.

 

[Greektim]

I believe the O.P. was can you recommend a book that supports the young earth theory not to start a debate about the subject or books

The title of the thread would suggest otherwise.

 

[Havensdad]

Hey brother, you are either uncharacteristically uninformed or incredibly biased regarding this subject and have over-stated the facts.

Norm Geisler, known as a prominent conservative expert concerning biblical inerrancy, writes, "Since the Bible does not say exactly how old the universe is, the age of the earth should not be a test for orthodoxy. In fact, many orthodox scholars have held the universe to be millions of years old or more (such as Augustine, B.B. Warfield, C.I. Schfield, John Walvoord, Frances Schaffer, Gleason Archer, Hugh Ross, and most of the leaders of the movement that produced the famous "Chicago Statement" (LINK) [1978] on the inerrancy of the Bible
Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology, Bethany House, 2003. Vol 2, p. 650.

Rob

Just because someone famous believes it, does not make it so. The Bible provides detailed genealogies, from Adam all the way to Jesus. Moreover, we are told how long each of these individuals lived, to the year. So unless you deny the ages that the Bible records, OR you deny the accuracy of the genealogies, you CANNOT believe in an Old Earth. Thus, you CANNOT believe, consistently, in the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture, unless you believe in a young earth.

And after seeing Geisler's shameful defense of Ergun Caner, I really do not have a particularly high opinion of him.

 

[asterisktom]

Just because someone famous believes it, does not make it so. The Bible provides detailed genealogies, from Adam all the way to Jesus. Moreover, we are told how long each of these individuals lived, to the year. So unless you deny the ages that the Bible records, OR you deny the accuracy of the genealogies, you CANNOT believe in an Old Earth. Thus, you CANNOT believe, consistently, in the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture, unless you believe in a young earth.

And after seeing Geisler's shameful defense of Ergun Caner, I really do not have a particularly high opinion of him.

Agreed. Also some of these other names bring a few comments to mind. First of all, I doubt that Augustine should even be included, seeing that he wrote of the "falseness" of those who assigned long periods to creation days.

Hugh Ross is rightly on the list however. He is the one who speaks of the observable creation (the night sky, nature, etc.) as "the 67th book of the Bible". As bad as that is, in practice, he interprets the other 66 books in the "light" of that more authoritative 67th book.

 

[Havensdad]

Agreed. Also some of these other names bring a few comments to mind. First of all, I doubt that Augustine should even be included, seeing that he wrote of the "falseness" of those who assigned long periods to creation days.

Yeah, Augustine spoke of an instant creation....not an Old Earth!

 

[Deacon]

I'm not trying to get you to believe in an old earth.
I only want you to understand that the position is not "inherently contradictory" to biblical inerrancy.

You can add Baptist systematic theologians Millard Erikson and Wayne Grudem to the list of those that agree with Geisler that old-earth creationism is not inherently contradictory to a literal interpretation of scripture.

Literal interpretation, (defined as using the grammatico-historical method), encourages the interpretation of scripture (including the biblical genealogies) using the same literary conventions used at the time the text was introduced.

Perhaps you have a problem with the The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy [LINK]

In the section concerning Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation the Statement says:

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.
So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

Without a doubt old earth creationist don't interpret the genealogical record with the same strict literal hermeneutic that you might, but many follow the conventions of the grammatico-historical method to direct ehm to properly understand how the biblical genealogies were understood by those who recorded them.

Rob

 

[asterisktom]

Yeah, Augustine spoke of an instant creation....not an Old Earth!

True. But, as I remember (always iffy!), he also wrote elsewhere (was it in the Enchiridion?) on a six day creation. I would have to look it up in my notes (which are back in the States).

The point is still that people tend to make all these "old guys" into whatever sock-puppets of belief that serves them.

 

[Havensdad]

I'm not trying to get you to believe in an old earth.
I only want you to understand that the position is not "inherently contradictory" to biblical inerrancy.

You can add Baptist systematic theologians Millard Erikson and Wayne Grudem to the list of those that agree with Geisler that old-earth creationism is not inherently contradictory to a literal interpretation of scripture.

Literal interpretation, (defined as using the grammatico-historical method), encourages the interpretation of scripture (including the biblical genealogies) using the same literary conventions used at the time the text was introduced.

Perhaps you have a problem with the The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy [LINK]

In the section concerning Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation the Statement says:


Without a doubt old earth creationist don't interpret the genealogical record with the same strict literal hermeneutic that you might, but many follow the conventions of the grammatico-historical method to direct ehm to properly understand how the biblical genealogies were understood by those who recorded them.

Rob

Yeah, again, I don't buy the argument from authority. You can throw all the names out that you want. If the Bible says, "900 years", and you say, "Oh, that's not what it meant" then you are DENYING the inerrancy of scripture.

Again, it is inherently contradictory. Believe what you wish, but do not try to say that you believe the Bible is without error, when you are denying what it says (regardless of the intellectual gymnastics that people try to use to accomplish it).

 

[Greektim]

Yeah, again, I don't buy the argument from authority. You can throw all the names out that you want. If the Bible says, "900 years", and you say, "Oh, that's not what it meant" then you are DENYING the inerrancy of scripture.

Again, it is inherently contradictory. Believe what you wish, but do not try to say that you believe the Bible is without error, when you are denying what it says (regardless of the intellectual gymnastics that people try to use to accomplish it).

What if there was a way to interpret an old earth position from the text of Scripture and still maintain a literal view of the days in gen. 1 and a literal view of the ages of people (900+ years old)???? Isn't this what we all want... to have agreement with the scientific community and still do justice to the text? There are views out there that treat the text as superior and yet still see a possible old earth. The view I mentioned earlier is an example. Sailhamer has presented a pretty strong exegetical case that we would do well to consider (especially those of us who value biblical theology and the drama of Scripture).

 

[Tom Butler]

I like Ken Ham's writings, so I consider myself a young-earther.

Another problem is that science keeps coming up with new stuff. The science doesn't stay the same.

 

[saturneptune]

Yeah, again, I don't buy the argument from authority. You can throw all the names out that you want. If the Bible says, "900 years", and you say, "Oh, that's not what it meant" then you are DENYING the inerrancy of scripture.

Again, it is inherently contradictory. Believe what you wish, but do not try to say that you believe the Bible is without error, when you are denying what it says (regardless of the intellectual gymnastics that people try to use to accomplish it).

No doubt that if Creation occured within the context of time, we are talking about a new earth. Also, 900 years means 900 years.

I agree with you. Aside from a pattern of two fallabe choices at times, we seem to worry more about what dead theologeans said that our ability to read Scripture and be guided by the Holy Spirit. Dead theologeans are dead theologeans. They were not divinely inspired while alive.

 

[quantumfaith]

Historic Creationism is a good view but not many know about it. It is the one proposed by John Sailhamer and espoused by John Piper and others. Since his book Genesis Unbound is out of print, you can read about the view here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land.

In short, the view argues that Gen. 1:1 was the creation of the universe. Gen. 1:2ff. (the 6 days) is the account of God preparing the garden (temple/kingdom) or promised land for his people to inhabit. The greatest strength of this view is that it puts Gen. 1-2 in its Exodus setting. This story has significance for the Exodus generation when they see God's plan of promised land in the beginning. It also sets a precedented theme in Scripture - that God wants to bless his people w/ his temple-presence and put his people in the land of blessing where his temple-presence will exist. This is looking forward to the tabernacle but ultimately to Jesus as the new temple and perhaps even broader as the body of Jesus as the extended new temple.

The article above gives solid exegesis to uphold this view.

Thanks for sharing, giving it a read.

 

[Havensdad]

What if there was a way to interpret an old earth position from the text of Scripture and still maintain a literal view of the days in gen. 1 and a literal view of the ages of people (900+ years old)???? Isn't this what we all want... to have agreement with the scientific community and still do justice to the text? There are views out there that treat the text as superior and yet still see a possible old earth. The view I mentioned earlier is an example. Sailhamer has presented a pretty strong exegetical case that we would do well to consider (especially those of us who value biblical theology and the drama of Scripture).

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...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Rant all you want, I personally will never hesitate to point someone to WLC.

:applause::thumbs: Nor would I!!!

Haven:
He illustrates a difficult and Biblical concept to people using analogies that they can relate to....How is this a problem??? The difference between WLC and those who attack him for that, is that when pressed with hard questions..... like what the Trinity is....he is capable of explaining so it is understood.....Can you?

 

[Havensdad]

:applause::thumbs: Nor would I!!!

Haven:
He illustrates a difficult and Biblical concept to people using analogies that they can relate to....How is this a problem??? The difference between WLC and those who attack him for that, is that when pressed with hard questions..... like what the Trinity is....he is capable of explaining so it is understood.....Can you?

Yes. And I can do it without describing Our God by pointing to a pagan idol.

Remember the Golden calf?

 

[evangelist6589]

I believe the O.P. was can you recommend a book that supports the young earth theory not to start a debate about the subject or books

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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...

:applause::applause::thumbs: this is correct...it does deny the supernatural..it is unbelief.

 

[Aaron]

I was looking through my library and noticed I had a book called "The End of Christianity." I have never read it, but looking at amazon it appears to support the old earth theory. This guy makes arguments but I do not agree with him. Can someone mention a book defending young earth? I believe that Ken Ham is young earth, but I do not know. This area of apologetics I am a little lost. Thanks.

Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe.

Russell Humphreys