Former YEC: Why he abandoned YEC views

[Philip]

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/joshzorn.htm

Interesting!

[1over137]

Would be intersting to see Jac's opinion on

Archer, G. "A Response to The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science." In Radmacher E. and Preus R., ed. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Academic Books, Zondervan. 1984. Gives biblical reasons why this scholar cannot accept the twenty-four-hour days interpretation of Genesis 1.

Blocher, H. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1984. My preferred interpretation of Genesis 1­3.

(I haven't read that myself)

[Jac3510]

I actually have to go by the library this weekend to swap some books out, and the one I go to (it's the one I used to work at, actually) stocks the first of those, if not both. I'll offer some thoughts on those articles next week.

As to the OP, I wasn't impressed. As expected, his story boils down to this: "I was YEC because that is what I was first taught. Then I found out that scientists aren't stupid, and that science really does seem to show that the earth is young. But doesn't that mean the Bible is wrong? I was worried about it until I discovered that the Bible can be read from an OEC standpoint."

So, as usual, the story is simply that this guy is reading his Bible in light of modern scientific interpretation. To which I say, *yawn.*

edit:

I do want to comment specifically on this section, though:

• For me it was surprising to find out that very few of the early Jewish interpreters or church fathers held to the six consecutive twenty-four-hour day interpretation of Genesis 1. In Creation and Time, Ross has documentedthat Philo, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandra, Origin, Augustine, Basil, and others all held to other interpretations. In the same book (chapter 17), Ross goes on to discuss the results of a1982 summit of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy which gathered to discuss, among other things, the matter of the ages of the universe and the earth. After hearing papers representing various interpretations of Genesis and after deliberating over these issues for many hours, this group of theologians and other scholars concluded that belief in six consecutive twenty-four-hour creation days is nonessential to belief in inerrancy. Everyone present except Henry Morris signed the concluding statement, thus demonstrating the isolation of the extreme position of the ICR.

Ah, this sounds so impressive, but if you have actually studied either of these subjects (I have both) rather than just read Ross' terrible misrepresentation of them (and I have read Ross as well), then you can see why this kind of "research" is little more that parroting old and discredited ideas. In short, it is somewhat true that the ECFs didn't interpret to mean six literal days. But then again, they didn't believe in a literal interpretation of pretty much anything. They, along with the "early" Jewish interpreters were heavily influenced by Platonism and, like Philo, tended to read the Bible allegorically. But Ross doesn't mention this. Now, he insists that his interpretation is a "literal" interpretation of Scriptures. But that standard, though, the ECFs don't back his view, either, because, again, they did not interpret the text literally. In fact, when we look at ECFs and Jewish interpreters, two salient facts stand out: First; every single interpreter who did take the text literally believed creation happened in six literal days; and second, there are no instances of a single ECF or Jewish interpreter who took a day-age approach to interpretation (either from a literal or allegorical perspective).. In fact, that view came into existence only after geologists suggested the earth was much older than originally thought!

As to the ICBI, Ross makes all sorts of false claims. For instance, he says that Morris and Archer both presented full length papers at that conference, which is simply not true. They did offer discussions on a paper presented by a scholar named Bradley, but neither presented a "full length" paper. What Ross doesn't tell you is that if you actually read the ICBI, you'll find that it is so watered down that even theistic evolution is considered supporting inerrancy. As it turns out, if you go back and look at the history of this debate and who was involved in the ICBI, you would not be surprised by that since you would find that it was by design. Mainline denominations and their seminaries had come to accept both an old earth and, by and large, evolution as a given. They did this, however, on the basis of science, not Scripture. For those of you interested, you should look into the history of Princeton Theological Seminary and the movement that caused Machen and co. to leave the faculty and form Westminster. That debate, especially when you look at the writings of the major players (particularly Warfield, Hodge, and Machen) is all very informative. The bottom line here is that the ICBI was stacked with people who were theistic evolutionists or had great sympathy for that interpretation (Archer being no exception). Thus Sinclair's comment applies: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Ross, of course, doesn't believe in evolution, but he leaves his readers with the impression that the ICBI didn't require YEC because they thought that OEC was a valid interpretation. But that's just misleading his readers. In fact, the ICBI rejected the necessity of a YEC reading because they were theistic evolutionists. It hardly, then, does Ross any favors to appeal to evolutionists in defense of his claim that YEC is not required to sustain biblical inerrancy!

I really wish OECs would do a better job of defending their position on the merits. This constant revisionist history they offer is tiresome, and frankly, it makes them come across as mere bullies.

[ryanbouma]

Hi Jac,

I agree, nothing really new here. Interesting story though

And it's certainly not the first time I've seen Ross criticized for pushing the facts to the limits. I'm not sure if your take on the ECFs discounts his views, they just don't align 100%.

Anyways, that's not why I'm posting. I'm wondering how you're able to reconcile the Bible and science with respect to your YEC position? Simple as that with all due respect. Maybe you've answered this question before somewhere else and it would be helpful if you pointed me there. I really enjoy your philosophical views, but as you're a YEC, I'm unsure if you just find the geological interpretations incorrect? I sure don't think evolution is true, but I sure do believe sandstone is more than 10,000 years old. Granted I have a geology background. Thanks.

[Jac3510]

And it's certainly not the first time I've seen Ross criticized for pushing the facts to the limits. I'm not sure if your take on the ECFs discounts his views, they just don't align 100%.

It doesn't, nor was it intended to. He can be totally wrong about the ECFs (he is) and still be right about his interpretation of Scripture (though he isn't). All I'm saying is that his historical argument just doesn't work. In fact, I happen to find it telling that he feels the need to give it a historical justification in the first place and the fact that he plays so fast and loose with the facts in the second. But that's another matter entirely . . .

Anyways, that's not why I'm posting. I'm wondering how you're able to reconcile the Bible and science with respect to your YEC position?

No. I'm not a scientist, I haven't studied physics or geology or any other such things. I've seen some popular arguments I find interesting (e.g., the apparent fact of multiple instances of convergence in an evolutionary worldview or the chicken-and-egg problem in a variety of natural phenomenon (e.g., DNA-replication)). I think some problems commonly cited as disproving a young earth are, in reality, just problems for all models (e.g., the horizon problem). I tend to find the claim that humans have been around hundreds of thousands of years and just figured out how to star writing five thousand years ago. Even if you limit the discussion to modern humans, they supposedly came on the scene about 50,000 years ago. I still don't see why it would take them 45,000 years to figure it out, especially when we have cave art from 40,000 years ago. The same type of problem exists with the rise of agriculture (arguably, it is more severe).

Now, I could go on, but it doesn't matter, because I emphasize: I am not a scientist (in the modern, restricted sense of the word). I can say that what I've seen in those areas has been presented in such a way that I find it persuasive, but I am not the least bit qualified to argue on these matters. My training is in language, theology, history, and philosophy. I do consider myself qualified to disagree with experts in those fields.

So can I reconcile the Bible with science? Again, no. Nor do I try. It isn't my field. I am convinced from my linguistic, philosophical, theological, and historical studies that the Bible really is the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God. I have absolutely no doubt that it teaches what is commonly called "young earth creationism." Since it is accurate in all it teaches, that's the position I adopt. If, though, you want to see more on this, you might want to search for a thread titled "Carnivorous Animals before the Fall," where I tried to offer a few more insights on what some might call scientific issues.

Simple as that with all due respect. Maybe you've answered this question before somewhere else and it would be helpful if you pointed me there. I really enjoy your philosophical views, but as you're a YEC, I'm unsure if you just find the geological interpretations incorrect? I sure don't think evolution is true, but I sure do believe sandstone is more than 10,000 years old. Granted I have a geology background. Thanks.

I tend to think that the Bible allows a world that is closer to 50,000 years old, not that that would make scientists any happier, I suppose. I'm just speaking strictly from a textual perspective.

[ryanbouma]

Thanks for your sincere answer Jac. If you were convinced the universe was 14 bil years old, and the life had been around more than 3 bil years, would that pose a theological problem to you? I ask because I feel that evolution poses a theological problem to me, but an old earth does not. Although I don't have the theological, language, history, or philosophy background you have So it would be interesting to know if you find an issue there, as a believer in an innerant Bible (myself also).

[Jac3510]

Thanks for your sincere answer Jac. If you were convinced the universe was 14 bil years old, and the life had been around more than 3 bil years, would that pose a theological problem to you? I ask because I feel that evolution poses a theological problem to me, but an old earth does not. Although I don't have the theological, language, history, or philosophy background you have So it would be interesting to know if you find an issue there, as a believer in an innerant Bible (myself also).

I hold it as a fact that if the earth is that if evolution is true or merely if the universe is 14byo and the earth 3byo, then the Bible is wrong as written. We would either have to abandon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which in my mind entails abandoning the doctine of inspiration, or we have to abandon the notion that the Bible can be read in an objective manner and has an objective message. That is to say, our hermeneutical approach to Scripture would have to be come mythological rather than historical.

[PaulSacramento]

Thanks for your sincere answer Jac. If you were convinced the universe was 14 bil years old, and the life had been around more than 3 bil years, would that pose a theological problem to you? I ask because I feel that evolution poses a theological problem to me, but an old earth does not. Although I don't have the theological, language, history, or philosophy background you have So it would be interesting to know if you find an issue there, as a believer in an innerant Bible (myself also).

I hold it as a fact that if the earth is that if evolution is true or merely if the universe is 14byo and the earth 3byo, then the Bible is wrong as written. We would either have to abandon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which in my mind entails abandoning the doctine of inspiration, or we have to abandon the notion that the Bible can be read in an objective manner and has an objective message. That is to say, our hermeneutical approach to Scripture would have to be come mythological rather than historical.

Jac, do you believe the Universe is a creation of God?

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
I tend to think that the Bible allows a world that is closer to 50,000 years old, not that that would make scientists any happier, I suppose. I'm just speaking strictly from a textual perspective.

Jac, the great compromiser. Does Ken Ham know you sold him out?

[Jac3510]

Jac, do you believe the Universe is a creation of God?

Of course. Why would you ask that?

Jac, the great compromiser. Does Ken Ham know you sold him out?

HAM IS A COMPROMISER HE ISNT REALLY SAVED IF HE WAS HE WOULDNT TRY TO USE SOCALLED SCIENCE TO PROVE THE EARTH IS YOUNG HE SHOULD JSUT TAKE IT ON FAITH AND STOP GIVING STUPID HERETICS LIKE ROSS A PLATFROM TO ARGUE FROM HE NEEDS TO JUST PREACH THE GOSPEL AND TELL PEOPLEL IKE IT IS IF YOU BELIEVE IN EVILUTION YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!1!1111!!1!1

[RickD]

Jac, do you believe the Universe is a creation of God?

Of course. Why would you ask that?

Jac, the great compromiser. Does Ken Ham know you sold him out?

HAM IS A COMPROMISER HE ISNT REALLY SAVED IF HE WAS HE WOULDNT TRY TO USE SOCALLED SCIENCE TO PROVE THE EARTH IS YOUNG HE SHOULD JSUT TAKE IT ON FAITH AND STOP GIVING STUPID HERETICS LIKE ROSS A PLATFROM TO ARGUE FROM HE NEEDS TO JUST PREACH THE GOSPEL AND TELL PEOPLEL IKE IT IS IF YOU BELIEVE IN EVILUTION YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!1!1111!!1!1

50,000 years? Jac you're creeping slowly into OEC territory!

[Silvertusk]

Thanks for your sincere answer Jac. If you were convinced the universe was 14 bil years old, and the life had been around more than 3 bil years, would that pose a theological problem to you? I ask because I feel that evolution poses a theological problem to me, but an old earth does not. Although I don't have the theological, language, history, or philosophy background you have So it would be interesting to know if you find an issue there, as a believer in an innerant Bible (myself also).

I hold it as a fact that if the earth is that if evolution is true or merely if the universe is 14byo and the earth 3byo, then the Bible is wrong as written. We would either have to abandon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which in my mind entails abandoning the doctine of inspiration, or we have to abandon the notion that the Bible can be read in an objective manner and has an objective message. That is to say, our hermeneutical approach to Scripture would have to be come mythological rather than historical.

A genuine question - but are you totally closed to the possibility that there could be another interpretation to Genesis?

[Jac3510]

I've been on both sides of the issue, ST. I am convinced that a plain reading of the text does not allow for anything other than what is commonly referred to as YEC. I'm open to nuances within that position, but on the big issues, no, there is no other correct interpretation. Moses depicts the creation of the entire universe out of nothing in six literal days. It presents the initial creation as devoid of death and suffering and their presence to the intrusion of sin into the originally intended created order.

I know we disagree on that, and that's fine. I hold that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. People like John MacArthur do not. I hold that Jesus will return and establish a literal kingdom on earth. Catholics do not. I hold that salvation cannot be lost. Methodists don't agree with me there. On all of those issues, I am "totally closed to the possibility that there could be another interpretation" on salvation, the Millennial Kingdom, and eternal security. That's just the way biblical interpretation is. There are not multiple interpretations. There is one interpretation. The rest are misinterpretations. OEC, as far as I can tell, is a misinterpretation of the biblical text.

[Kurieuo]

HAM IS A COMPROMISER HE ISNT REALLY SAVED IF HE WAS HE WOULDNT TRY TO USE SOCALLED SCIENCE TO PROVE THE EARTH IS YOUNG HE SHOULD JSUT TAKE IT ON FAITH AND STOP GIVING STUPID HERETICS LIKE ROSS A PLATFROM TO ARGUE FROM HE NEEDS TO JUST PREACH THE GOSPEL AND TELL PEOPLEL IKE IT IS IF YOU BELIEVE IN EVILUTION YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!1!1111!!1!1

Jac, you do know while G&S is Day-Age that it just isn't acceptable to bag YECs here?

Mods come on do something. Is it really acceptable to let people bag YECs while clamping down on anyone bagging Ross and the likes? Hehe...

Sorry, couldn't resist. I know you really felt more personal attacks on YEC than Ham, but you did defend Ham quite strongly in the past.

[Jac3510]

HAM IS A COMPROMISER HE ISNT REALLY SAVED IF HE WAS HE WOULDNT TRY TO USE SOCALLED SCIENCE TO PROVE THE EARTH IS YOUNG HE SHOULD JSUT TAKE IT ON FAITH AND STOP GIVING STUPID HERETICS LIKE ROSS A PLATFROM TO ARGUE FROM HE NEEDS TO JUST PREACH THE GOSPEL AND TELL PEOPLEL IKE IT IS IF YOU BELIEVE IN EVILUTION YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!1!1111!!1!1

Jac, you do know while G&S is Day-Age that it just isn't acceptable to bag YECs here?

Mods come on do something. Is it really acceptable to let people bag YECs while clamping down on anyone bagging Ross and the likes? Hehe...

Sorry, couldn't resist. I know you really felt more personal attacks on YEC than Ham, but you did defend Ham quite strongly in the past.

URALLHAIRITICKS

And yes, I've defended Ham. I think I'd also defend Ross if it was necessary, but I don't think I've seen too much of a need for it. Or, if I could put it another way . . .




I mean . . . REALLY . . . if THESE guys can do it . . .