Scientist claims black holes don't exist....

[RickD]

K,

Did you really just argue for OEC/progressive creationism, and then say you're not an OEC/PC?


What's next, are you going to argue that one must trust Christ for salvation, but say you're not a Christian because there's too much baggage that comes with the name? Or maybe, you're not a believer in Christ because there would perhaps be no believers if there were no unbelievers?

I've got news for you. If you believe God created the earth, and you believe it's billions of years old, you are an OEC.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I'd encourage YECs to take a more open approach if ever discussing creation with non-Christians.

I'm YEC. I never discuss YEC with non-Christians because I understand that it is a major stumbling block for them, and would expose me - and the Bible - to ridicule. When a non-Christian has asked me about the 6 days of creation in Genesis, I answer that the Hebrew word yom also has the meaning of an era. This way, their belief in evolution isn't threatened. I also present Schroeder's Creation Perspective as a possible interpretation of Scripture.

I'd encourage YECs to take a more open approach if ever discussing creation with non-Christians.

I'm quite sure that most YECs do take an ''open approach''. The YECs who come here to spew their nuttiness probably have the primary problem of legalism, to which YEC has been grafted on and gives them a reason to judge others.

FL

[Kurieuo]

K,

Did you really just argue for OEC/progressive creationism, and then say you're not an OEC/PC?


What's next, are you going to argue that one must trust Christ for salvation, but say you're not a Christian because there's too much baggage that comes with the name? Or maybe, you're not a believer in Christ because there would perhaps be no believers if there were no unbelievers?

I've got news for you. If you believe God created the earth, and you believe it's billions of years old, you are an OEC.

Rick,

Thanks for pointing that out so I can elaborate more clearly.

I just want to make sure I'm coming to this on my own terms, and not someone elses.

Perspective is sometimes everything.

Firstly, take PC aka Progressive Creation. What does that really mean?
Well looking at the conjoined meaning of the words YECs are also PC.
AiG I believe were the ones that coined this term to represent Rossists.
Are you comfortable being called a Rossist -- you heretic you?
It's already a done deal -- you're wrong.
PC is a modern unsupported invention by one heretical teacher aka Hugh Ross.
I stand corrected. Progressive Creation was apparently coined by Bernard Ramm who was a part of American Scientific Affiliation, an organisation founded by a group of orthodox Christian scientists (obviously, not to be confused obviously "Christian Science" or "Scientology').
In his book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, he advocated Progressive Creationism which did away with the necessity for a young Earth, a global flood and the recent appearance of humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism (yes Rick, I caved into the great wikipedia!)
Nonetheless, I'd like to forgo the title and just speak the substance. I have a prejudice against titles and boxes, that's all. Makes me feel claustrophobic.

Or take Jac's accusation of there being no literal Day-Age/OEC interpretation of Genesis throughout history.
That may be true, because if I'm honest a Day-Age interpretation wasn't really forthcoming to the sophistication put forward by Hugh Ross in The Genesis Question.
An interpretation put forward by someone who was firstly a scientist and secondarily a Biblical scholar.
Do you not see the baggage that brings into the debate?
Now in Jac's eyes I need to perhaps show earlier theologians supported his re-interpretation, in order to have any corroborating authoritative support.
I don't want to do that.

Equally, it is probably true that there is also no YEC interpretation to such levels of sophistication.
The age of the Earth just wasn't a pressing issue and we can only presume what people thought on this.
I'm sure some thought the Earth was quite old, ancient and the like -- there are even passages in Scripture to support this.
BUT, it just wasn't an issue. So none of this may have necessarily been raised.
This does not mean a YEC interpretation was the default position up until the 20th century as YECs see it.
Put simply, there was no identification of a creationist position based upon a "Young Earth" or "Old Earth" distinction.
Again, it wasn't an issue.

What is the one train of thought or idea inherent throughout many of these labels I'm resisting?
Well, my position is a central thought in varying degrees to all:
God performed specific fiat creative acts in the world that spanned relatively long periods of time.

Not, that a Day-Age interpretation something akin to that in The Genesis Creation existed prior to 20th century.
Not, that there were strong supporters of a 4.5 billion year old Earth based on a Scriptural reading (which may reinforce the view that YEC was the default position and and OEC is purely scientific revisionism in light of our modern scientific knowledge).
Not a position with heretical ties to some scientist who is a Scriptural revisionist.

Perspective again, is sometimes everything. This may be pedantic on my part, but it's my time too.
I don't want to constantly break down strawmen arguments or irrelevant accusations due to my being this or that label.
I'm just wanting to support a basic idea without the labels and baggage that comes from that.

[Jac3510]

I don't object to K's objection to labels, no matter how much those labels reflect his belief system. I see a comparison in debates about dispensational theology. The argument there is that dispensationalism is a recent system. The name certainly is. And our response is always to point out that while the system of thought certainly is recent, the ideas are not. In fact, pretty much every individual idea dispensationalists hold have precedent in the Church Fathers, even if the whole system is not present. So the important thing is the ideas, not the labels.

But that goes to why I am so firmly opposed to interpreting yom to refer (literally) to ages. No one has EVER taken it that way. They did not start doing that until scientists came along and said that the earth was very old, and then suddenly scholars started arguing that Moses believed in an old earth all along. We just needed the help of modern science to figure out what Moses meant!

I call bullocks.

Now, I firmly appreciate K's desire to defend his own position and not attack any others. That doesn't change the fact, though, that I think that OEC is exegetically wrong and that it is ultimately rooted in an eisogetical approach to Scripture. The fact is, no one taught anything even remotely resembling OEC prior to the 20th century. The same CANNOT be said about YEC. We can find plenty of YEC views in the Church Fathers! To be more specific, I am talking about three beliefs in particular:

1. The age of the earth
2. The interpretation of yom
3. The extent of the curse

YECs hold (1) to be less than 10,000 years; OECs hold it to be greater by magnitudes. There are plenty of CFs who held that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, and they say so explicitly. YECs hold (2) to refer to ordinary days; OECs hold it refers to ages. Literally every single CF I know who addressed the subject, without exception, interpreted yom to refer to ordinary days. I immediately grant that a great many, possibly MOST, CFs believed that Genesis 1 does NOT IN FACT teach a HISTORICAL process in which God created the world in six ordinary days. Many, if not MOST, CFs held that Genesis 1 was an allegory,and that, in fact, the whole world was created instantaneously. But on their allegory--and this is the important point--the six days referred to ordinary days. Those ordinary days were then taken allegorically in the interpretation of the passage. Against all this, NO CF--NOT A SINGLE ONE--took the yom to refer (semantically, that is, literally speaking) to "ages." And finally, YECs take (3) to mean that there was absolutely no death of any kind before the Fall. Again, that view is not only found in the CFs, it is, in fact, the STANDARD view in the CFs. They got to that primarily for eschatological reasons. But, regardless of their reasons, that is what they believed. Further, that was a very common view among the Jews of the same time period. Now, I am under the impression that some of the allegorists held a view on sin and death more akin to the OEC view that the results of the fall were limited to mankind. I cannot quote them directly, but that is my impression. What I am rather sure about is that no literalist held an OEC view of the results of the Fall.

Of those three points, I am most certain about the first two. I am open to being corrected on the third. Simply offer a quote and that will be enough.

My point, going back to the comparison with dispensationalism, is that while the YEC system may not be found in the CFs, all of its major ideas are found there in a non-systematic way. Against that, NONE of the distinctive OEC views are found in the CFs. And in just the same way that a major apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus requires that we find a historical event to explain the mutation in Jewish theology regarding the resurrection in general (the only such event with sufficient explanatory power being Jesus' resurrection), in the same way, we must find historical reason to explain the mutation in church theology with respect to the interpretation of Genesis 1 and the invention of OEC theology. And the only event of sufficient explanatory power I am aware of is development of modern geology and cosmology. It is for THAT reason I charge OEC of being eisogesis, and it therefore ought to be rejected.

The only solutions I am aware of to this problem are:

1. Deny the inerrancy and/or inspiration of Scripture; or
2. Deny the necessity of a literal hermeneutic; or
3. Prove from the text without reference to science that the OEC interpretation is the one Moses intended his readers to grasp, and then offer an explanation as to why that understanding was completely lost on every interpreter until the 20th century.

Perhaps OECs believe they can show (3). I think they cannot, and that is ultimately why I abandoned the position. But with ALL that said, again, I repeat what I said at first in this post. I appreciate K's request not to make this about labels but only about what his own position is. And that's fine. I hope he, and everyone else, sees this post in the same spirit--not as a defense of YEC per se but an explanation as to why I think that my view (that yom refers literally to ordinary days, that the earth was created a relatively short time ago, and that the curse extended to all creation) is the view of Moses and that those views that are opposed are eisogetical at best, and that whatever we decide to label them.

[Jac3510]

And by the way, I also agree with FL that we really ought not be engaging in creation apologetics. I have no problem arguing fro God's existence from the fact of creation, but in my view, the interpretation of Genesis 1 is a theological and not apologetic question. If someone wishes to reject Christianity because they reject a certain interpretation of Genesis 1, they are actually making a theological argument with respect to a particular view of inspiration, inerrancy, and hermeneutics generally. As such, I don't think that the OEC, YEC, TE debate should matter a hill of means on matters of either evangelism or Christian fellowship. Doctrinally, I think the debate is important for hermeneutical and eschatological reasons, and that alone.

[Kurieuo]

Jac, just letting you know working on a response to "Book 1" re: human and divine authorship.

Running through my logic filter, I see some assumptions obvious to me that I'd think would be impossible to prove.
However, I want to be more informed before responding. This is actually also an interesting issue I've not come across before.

Further, it is something that keeps recurring in your thought with regards to your "literal" hermeneutic.
And as such forming your main basis for rejecting God's direct creation spanning more than mere days.
So let's see what I can unravel after reading up a little.

I'm going to try get a hold of Radmacher's book. He's not one to be snubbed.
Expect it'll be some days. If it appears to be taking too long then I'll formulate a response earlier.

[Jac3510]

Sure, take your time. I certainly took mine, and even then I only addressed about half of your previous points! For the record, I wasn't clear, but my previous post was directed more at Rick than anything else. I just thought some extra clarifications were in order beyond that. But, again, take your time. I'm extremely interested in your critique, and I'd much rather wait awhile on something more precise than something you think is important that you are picking up on getting lost in either volume and/or vagueness in attempt to get something out sooner rather than later.

Besides, I'm trying not to judge so I won't be judged. Ask Rick how long I've been working on Simplifying Divine Simplicity!

[Kurieuo]

Sure, take your time. I certainly took mine, and even then I only addressed about half of your previous points! For the record, I wasn't clear, but my previous post was directed more at Rick than anything else. I just thought some extra clarifications were in order beyond that. But, again, take your time. I'm extremely interested in your critique, and I'd much rather wait awhile on something more precise than something you think is important that you are picking up on getting lost in either volume and/or vagueness in attempt to get something out sooner rather than later.

Besides, I'm trying not to judge so I won't be judged. Ask Rick how long I've been working on Simplifying Divine Simplicity!

Re: DS, don't forget I want a read of it myself too when you're done.

It is something that interests Squible also.
In fact, I'm sure you two would share very similar ideas here.

[abelcainsbrother]

I must say that Jac is one of the few YEC that is classy about his YEC stance as most YEC's especially the leaders a lot of times try to make this a salvation issue and view you as a heretic if you stray from YEC and are flat out rude to you.Have any of you ever watched the debate between Ken Ham and Hugh Ross they had about a year ago on TBN? Did you see how disrespectful Ken Ham was to his brother in Christ Hugh Ross?Ken Ham was even lying claiming that Hugh Ross accepted evolution science he was rude and offensive and this is exactly how YEC have treated Old earth Gap theorists as well,even making up lies or repeating YEC talking points against the Gap theory that are lies and wrong.

The Gap theory may not be as popular as the other creation theories out there but it is the most true and this is why Satan has suppressed it as he does not want his evolution lie destroyed and he knows YEC is wrong and is no real threat to it.Still I forgive YEC's because I think they mean well and really are trying to get people to believe God's word but the truth is the truth and we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ and answer to how we handled God's word and truth and treated brothers in Christ.

The bible tells us to reason and test everything and without love we are but a tinkling cymbal.We should be able to sit down as brothers in Christ and reason and discover the truth and still respect each other.The idea should be for us to "Repent" when God reveals truth to us not just keep clinging to a position because you are saved.I try my best to live by this "Let God be true and every man a liar" I follow this when I research the many different Christian issues. It is kind of amazing how John Lennox can destroy atheist talking points and yet not even get into Genesis 1 and if he did he would probably be ridiculed by YEC's as he knows how divisive it is.

[Kurieuo]

Jac, just updating that I haven't forgotten about this discussion.
I've finished all the research I care to do right now, and I'm well and truly into my book.
If I get a few more nights to myself, I should have the last "chapter" finished in less than a week.

[tjdagger]

Philip,
How much time would you say God requires to do any particular thing? What would you label as a realistic time frame?

We read Genesis with a 21st century pair of glasses and sensibilities. Of course we do, ultimately we can only draw from personal perspective. And did Moses HAVE to understand what God wanted Him to record, to do so? What is it that makes you think Moses didn't question God and seek meaning as he wrote?

As for the Egypt creation myth similarity, and the purpose of Genesis. Is it reasonable to consider that Egyptian, Norse, Greek and any other teachings of False Gods stem from the many cultural accounts of beings from the heavens coming to earth to impart knowledge to man? Doesn't the Bible also refer to such an event? If fallen angels presented themselves to man as Gods, then from where would they (fallen angels) draw inspiration for revealing a falsified creation accounts? Would this not also provide an explanation to similarities in false creation accounts to the real creative events rather than the opposite you present above?

[Kurieuo]

I created a new, more on topic thread, for the discussion between Jac and I to continue.
The new thread can be found here.

[Audie]

This thread is worthy of more time than I can give it, alas.

A thought tho..

This forum seems much given to philosophy, and I as a non-philosopher sort looking from the outside have sometimes had the attitude that philosophy often serves to let people drift pretty far from shore.

IF the study of philosophy and the Bible leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is less than 10K yrs old, of what possible use is it?

[Kurieuo]

Cheap blow Min.
Many philosophers and theologians in particular, and specifically Christians would disagree.
One might be lead to believe that true science leads people to believe Earth is younger than 10,000 years too, if you accept their pseudo-science.

[Byblos]

IF the study of philosophy and the Bible leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is less than 10K yrs old, of what possible use is it?

I don't understand how you could possibly have arrived at such a disjointed conclusion. The fact that some of us are philosophers and YECers does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that philosophy itself "leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is less than 10K yrs old". One has absultely nothing to do with the other. Philosophy in general and metaphysics in particular are in the business of studying reality (ontology) and how we go about knowing it (epistemology). The study of proper philosphy inescapably leads to the conclusion that there is one God who has a set of attributes (timeless, changeless, immaterial, etc, etc.) The study of the Bible, on the other hand, is a theological/hermeneutical domain and nothing to do with philosophy.