Young-Earth Creationism

[Anonymous]

I would just like to note that at the time of Darwin, many christians did in fact believe that the earth was million's of years old. This was before any notion's of theistic evolution and so interpretation of scripture really hasn't changed a whole lot.

Old earth creationists have been around for awhile, and closely examining of scripture as Kurieuo has addressed and of nature reveals that they agree with eachother.

[Kurieuo]

I was recently asked for quotes by early Christians who did not take the days as 24 hours, or allowed for other interpretations. Reading back through the posts here, I don't think any have actually been posted. So I just thought I'd supply some here...

Irenaeus says:

Thus, then, in the day they eat, in the same did they die... For it is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. ... On one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of creation)... He (Adam) did no overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit... for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them."

Origen wrote of the first six days as representing the time of work for men, and the seventh (Sabbath) day, lasting the full duration of the world:

He [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties will ascend to the contemplation (of Celestial things) and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings."

In "The City of God," Augustine wrote, "As for these 'days,' [Genesis creation days] it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think—let alone explain in words—what they mean." In "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," he added, "But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." Elsewhere in the same book he wrote:

Seven days by our reckoning after the model of the day of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its settings; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them."

I found these quotes within a book on creation which offers up three different views (24-hour view, Day-age view, and The Framework view)—The Genesis Debate. There are other quotes I could provide, but I'm sure these are enough to quell the accusation that people only began accepting differing point of views to the 24-hour interpretation because of modern science.

Kurieuo

[Felgar]

Irenaeus says:

Thus, then, in the day they eat, in the same did they die... For it is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. ... On one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of creation)... He (Adam) did no overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit... for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them."

Hey that was my first explanation for Adam and Eve "surely dying" from our other thread. No response necessary, (or take it to our other one) just thought it was funny to see.

Out of curiosity, could you summarize the framework view in 5 sentances Kurieuo? The single-sentance summary on the book synopsis is a little too brief.

[Kurieuo]

Sorry, just re-read your post Felgar.

To provide a quick summary, the Framework position holds that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is to be seen as non-literal based upon certain exegetical foundations. It also holds that the creation days do not contain sequence or chronology, but rather they are figurative scheme. To quote Lee Irons and Meredith G. Kline:

"The days [of creation] are like picture frames. Within each day-frame, Moses gives us a snapshop of divine creative activity. Although the creation fiat-fulfillments (e.g., "Then God said, 'Let there be light' [fiat]; and there was light [fulfillment]") refer to actual historical events that actually occurred, they are narrated in nonsequential order within the literary structure or framework of a seven-day week."

These defenders of the Framework position go on to detail examples found in scripture where events are told in a "dischronolized" (non-sequential) fashion (e.g., Ezra 4:1-24 in v.1-5 begins with opposition to rebuilding the temple in late 6th century BC; v.6-23 describes opposition to the rebuilding of the city walls in the 5th century BC; and v.24 returns back to the sixth century scene, "Then work on the house of God in Jerusalem ceased, and it was stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius kind of Persia" [i.e., in 520]). An exegetical argument that Framework advocates produce for their non-sequential position, is that they note what is believed to be two parallel triads within the creation days. The first triad consist of days 1-3 which deal with the created kingdoms, while the second deals with the creature kings who exercise dominion over and parallel those kingdoms. The seventh day is said to depict the "Creator King" enthroned in His heavenly Sabbath rest over all creation. Many scholars apparently consider this parallelism to be a literary device intentionally crafted by the author (see following representation).
<pre>Created Kingdoms Creature kings
Day 1 - Light Day 4 - Luminaries
Day 2 - Sky Day 5 - Sea creatures
Seas Winged creatures
Day 3 - Dry land Day 6 - Land animals
Vegetation Man
The Creator King
Day 7 - Sabbath</pre>An exegetical argument for their non-literal position on the Genesis creation is found within what has come to be called a "two-register cosmology." Without getting into specifics, it essentially believes the Genesis creation deals with the creation of an upper (invisible/heavenly) register, and a lower (visible/earthly) register, and they do provide some exegetical support for such a view within Scripture.

More on these issues can be read at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Sc ... Kline.html, and I'd also recommend the book entitled The Genesis Debate.

As for the time since creation, the Framework postion never touches upon this issue, since it is generally believed by its proponents that scripture does not provide details on how much time has elapsed since creation. As such, one can hold to either a young or old Earth as well as the Framework postion.

Kurieuo.

[Felgar]

That's great... Thanks a bunch Kurieuo.

[DrCreation]

Greetings Kurieuo,

You wrote:

I prefer to take even more on Faith, and believe that God would faithfully (not deceitfully) reveal Himself through creation, and that this would be compatible with God's word.

I agree that you are on the right track by saying "God would faithfully (not deceitfully) reveal Himself through creation, and that this would be compatibale with God's word." This is a true statement and is in accord with Romans 1:19 and 20.

My question to you on this is why do you place man's fallible interpretations of scientific data above the infallible Word of God? It is only from those fallible assumptions, e.g. uniformitarianism, etc. that conflict arises, not with a straight forward reading of the Scriptures.

All things, which includes scientific data (and their interpretations) must conform to the straight forward teaching of Scripture. We are never to interpret Scripture according to man's fallible reasoning. All philosophy and principles of life are to square with the Bible, never are we to square the Bible with man's philosophy and what he has determined to be "life's principles.

If uinformitarian principles tell us the earth is old; and the straight forward reading of the Scriptures tellsus it is young. Then uniformitarian principles must be wrong and rejected. And so on down the line.

To present a much fuller case, I present here a summary of my many reasons for why I believe a young earth interpretation is Scripturally inadequate:

There is no rule of the Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days, even when used in a series and so on, must refer to a 24 day.

It does not appear that your are well studied in Hebrew, because all Hebrew scholars I am aware of up to the Doctoral level including myself would not agree with your assesment of what "YoM" means here or in Genesis One. This includes James Barr who teaches Hebrew at Oxford University and he is a total liberal and has no intrest in the conflict here. The bottom line of the issue is the perceived need to harmonize Scripture with the alleged age of the earth, which comes from unformitarian cojecture, which leads people to think anything different—it really has nothing to do with the text itself.

[Kurieuo]

Many of the issues you raise have been previously dealt with in my exchanges with Felgar. However, a few comments...

I agree that you are on the right track by saying "God would faithfully (not deceitfully) reveal Himself through creation, and that this would be compatibale with God's word." This is a true statement and is in accord with Romans 1:19 and 20.

My question to you on this is why do you place man's fallible interpretations of scientific data above the infallible Word of God? It is only from those fallible assumptions, e.g. uniformitarianism, etc. that conflict arises, not with a straight forward reading of the Scriptures.

I would ask why you place one man's fallible interpretations of Scripture above that of science? I believe both will be in full harmony when each are interpreted correctly.

All things, which includes scientific data (and their interpretations) must conform to the straight forward teaching of Scripture.

And your interpretation of Scripture "just happens to be" the straight forward teaching? Forgive me if I disagree.

There is no rule of the Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days, even when used in a series and so on, must refer to a 24 day.

It does not appear that your are well studied in Hebrew, because all Hebrew scholars I am aware of up to the Doctoral level including myself would not agree with your assesment of what "YoM" means here or in Genesis One. This includes James Barr who teaches Hebrew at Oxford University and he is a total liberal and has no interest in the conflict here. The bottom line of the issue is the perceived need to harmonize Scripture with the alleged age of the earth, which comes from unformitarian cojecture, which leads people to think anything different—it really has nothing to do with the text itself.

I have studied Hebrew, albeit I don't proclaim to be a Hebrew genius. Yet, if you desire we can take a quick look around at the Hebrew and OT professors to find out whether there are such professors who believe 'yom' can refer to a long period of time. The first one who comes to my attention is Dr. Gleason Archer, a Hebrew professor who helps produce leading scholars. As John Ankerberg reminisces, "Gleason Archer has taught most of your Hebrew scholars. He graduated from Harvard with his Ph.D. I think he knows like 22 different languages. He used to take notes in Hittite when he was in class. I used to quote from the lexicon and he would say, "That's wrong," and he would correct the lexicon. I never knew anybody who corrected the dictionary. He'd write a letter and they would correct it" (http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0201W3.htm).

Also, at the second summit of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, the issue of the age of the universe and earth was on the agenda. Several papers were presented, and long deliberations followed. The conclusion of all the theologians and Old Testament scholars present was that inerrancy requires belief in creation but not in 24-hour creation days. Dr. James Sawyer of Western Seminary pointed out that when the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy was formed in 1978, “the founding membership held over 30 discrete positions with reference to the interpretation of Genesis 1. Only one of these positions involved a 6-day recent creation.” Apparently, most of those on the council felt that the book of God's words did not demand that the days of creation be considered standard 24-hour days—or that no time elapsed between the days." (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1818)

Answers in Genesis also admits, although they attempt to play it down: "it is true that all the theologians and OT scholars meeting at the ICBI agreed to a printed statement that implied that inerrancy does not require belief in 24-hour days of creation, it is not true that all such ICBI scholars reject the literal day interpretation. Though certainly the young-Earthers were a small minority" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... s_full.asp). A gross understatement (even misleading) considering only 1 out of 30 held to a consecutive 24-hour view of creation days.

Furthermore, Genesis 2:4 reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [yom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens". Firstly I bring your attention to 'generations'—why not have 'days' rather than 'generations' (which implies much longer time) as a summary of God's creation so far? Additionally, this passage also summarises God's whole creation as a "day" (yom). Can you tell me whether one cake can be six cakes? Can 6 days [yom] be one day [yom]?

As for James Barr, I do understand he is loved by YECs who like to quote him (e.g., see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... s/barr.asp). Yet if liberal scholars are above more conservative Biblical scholars, then we would be forced to consider the Bible under methodological naturalism, rejecting any supernatural or divine elements within it. I am sure you do not want to do this, and I certainly won't accept these principles. But dealing with James Barr's words, I would agree that what the professor said probably was true for him; that is, "so far as" James Barr knows.... James Barr may not have known of many professors specialised in Hebrew or the OT who did not hold to the 24-hour day view. Do we know what professors James Barr knew? What were his own professors' beliefs on the interpretation of the Genesis creation, while he was studying? How much had James Barr looked around for other professors outside of his world back in 1984 when he made this statement? Read his statements again and tell me whether he sounds confident in his statement with words such as "probably" and "as far as I know", that he knows the views of all such leading professors. Chances are it was probably only a handful (if that) of professors in such areas that he actually knew, and even less that he actually asked. My references to Gleason Archer and the ICBI above tells a different story to that of James Barr.

Kurieuo