Curious about YEC position

[jlay]

No question there are some who feel that way.

Disagreeing on the age of the earth isn't necessarily a KINGDOM issue. However it can be. If that view undermines the entire basis for salvation. There are so many fundemental tenets of the faith that errode if Genesis is not reliable.

We can know and trust Genesis and not be bound to a 6,000 year old earth. Why, because in reading the 1st chapter you can clearly see that the intent is not to date the creation, but to give glory to the creator and clearly communicate that the world, the universe, and everything in it is a specific, intentional, and purposeful result of a creator God for the life of mankind and the relationship of God with man. And man was to be a demonstration of the creator through that relationship.

What is fundemental? That man was created in the image of God. That he was formed seperately and distinctly from all of creation, and that God breathed the very breath into him.
Sin
Death.
Romans 5:12-14
Adam and Moses are both mentioned. Not figuratively, but literally. Jesus quoted the creation, “But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them.” The verb “made” in the Greek is in the aorist tense, implying point action, rather than progressive development. He also sights the flood and the destruction of Sodom. "Just as it was in the days....."

Genesis not only eductates us about the origins of sin, but it explains death, suffering and disease. If death did not begin with sin, then the whole premise of "the wages of sin is death" unravels. In fact a non-literal Adam would imply sin was not the culprit in seperating man from His creator.

So simply disagreeing on the age of the earth is not the issue. But, if we so dilute the reliability of Genesis then we undermine the very foundations of everything else that points to the cross. And, thus open the door for all kinds of wayward thinking.

[Canuckster1127]

That' sounds remarkably similar to what was said when Galileo dared to suggest the earth revolved around the sun.

The creation and the Bible itself are truth. Science and Theology are man's interpretation and understanding of these primary sources of truth. As such, both science and theology are subject to correction when evidence demonstrates them to be wrong. Science is not creation itself and Theology is not the Bible itself.

When Theology is held to despite primary evidence first from the Scriptures itself and secondary evidence from the creation indicating that a particularl theology is suspect (being kind there) and the argument offered is that that theology is in effect the Bible itself, then the door is closed to correction as there is no openness or willingness to change. That's actually what happened to a large degree with Galileo. A particular point of view was deemed to exist from Scripture that the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo (he wasn't the first but with his telescope he was the best equipped) challenged it, the blinders went on and he was accussed of error, heresy and forced to recant against his own conscience by a group, whom I will bluntly say would have got along fabulously with a good number of YEC proponents today.

It is no virtue to hold to a position that is discredited both Biblically and from evidence from the creation itself. The appeals to those passages of the Bible which glorify foolishness are not intended to be carte blanche appeals to any belief that comes down the pike. It is specifically referring to the gospel message and resurrection of Christ neither of which are tied to one's particular view of the YEC/OEC issue. Either position is subject to extremes and YEC has elements of it that indeed are exclusionary, do indeed assess anyone who disagrees with them as heretics and unbelievers and have acted upon that belief to remove pastors from pulpits, professors from seminaries and Christian colleges and exclude people from churches.

What is more, it only serves as a stumbling block to some who hear the message of many in the YEC camp and accept their presentation that this is part and parcel of Christianity and on that basis they choose not hear anymore or outright reject the Gospel of Christ.

OEC has been and remains a literal interpretation of Genesis. It does not allegorize. It does not reduce it to mythology. It has been a part of the Christian Heritage from the earliest times of Church History and in fact finds its roots within the Jewish Community even before the incarnation of Christ. It is not a new movement nor is it personality driven. Reasoning that OEC is dangerous because it allows for the periods of time necessary for those elements of the Theory of Evolution is completely invalid. You don't evaluate an issue like this on the basis of what it might imply or how others might use it. You independently evaluate it as to whether it is true or not.

Reasoning backwards on the basis of implications to one's theology in effect elevates one's theology above the Scriptures and truth itself.

[zoegirl]

Amen to that (and to pretty much any other of your posts), Canuckster....well said.

[Canuckster1127]

I spent an hour yesterday listening to a link you (or jlay I'm not sure) provided (the biologist turned YEC Christian) and it was an hour wasted as nothing of any value was discussed other than the usual gibberish we hear from YECers how we're not Christian because we don't believe God could have done it in 6 days.

This is down right slanderous and dishonest. The YEC position never says that you must believe a young earth to be a Christian because Jesus doesn't say that. We hold that the OEC position is exegetically unbiblical, illogical, and short on evidence but you don't have to be logically consistent to be saved, and we should all praise Jesus for that.

Would you please retract the above statement?

Why should he retract it? We do indeed hear from (some) YEC'rs exactly that. Maybe you don't, but that doesn't make you the spokesman for all YEC's nor does it invalidate what he said.

[jlay]

Don't think you are being fair here my friend. And I think it might be because we are arguing two differnet things.

You are implying that holding to any position (even if right) is somehow similar to a dark age mentality to supress the truth. Which is not what I am implying at all. In fact the TRUTH is the matter here.

Truth is truth. Opinion doesn't change it. And theology can be truth and it can not. Theology is merely man's ideas about God, which are often wrong. Man can be wrong about scienc, and about God's Word. And being wrong about either can lead one to false beliefs. I fight that with hard core YECs all the time, who wave the 6,000 year banner in your face. Being wrong in that regard means they may be scientifically wrong, but still can KNOW Christ and the forgiveness of sins. However, one can be theologically wrong and this error can lead them down a much more dangerous path. But don't jump to conclusions here. I'm NOT saying that is the case with you, me or anyone on this specific topic. I stand by my statement, "If that view undermines the entire basis for salvation. There are so many fundemental tenets of the faith that errode if Genesis is not reliable." But I did not direct that specifically to anyone. That is why I said, " However it can be." Some theological issues are salvation issues, some are not.

OEC has been and remains a literal interpretation of Genesis. It does not allegorize. It does not reduce it to mythology.

I woudld understand that you are implying that Genesis is reliable and you hold a literal interpretation. By literal I assume you mean a literal creation, a literal creation of man, a literal garden, a literal tree, a literal sin, a literal fall, and a literal introduction of death and alienation from God.

Reasoning that OEC is dangerous because it allows for the periods of time necessary for those elements of the Theory of Evolution is completely invalid. You don't evaluate an issue like this on the basis of what it might imply or how others might use it. You independently evaluate it as to whether it is true or not.

I pretty much used my own words to say the same thing. And I am pretty sure you don't disagree with yourself? I didn't say OEC was wrong because it specifically opened the door for the theory of evolution. You did. So I suspect you've read something into my posts that isn't there. Neither OEC or YEC are truly compatible with Darwinism, because Darwinism leaves no room to explain how everything came from nothing. Not even a crack in the door. It is a reality that YEC is NOT comaptible with Darwinism but is compatible with other elements of evolution theory.

And my arguments were from the position of undermining Genesis by reducing the events and characters to myths. That is why I said, "So simply disagreeing on the age of the earth is not the issue."


It is incorrect to say that being OEC menas you have a literal interpretation. You said, "OEC has been and remains a literal interpretation of Genesis." But you have Gap theory OEC, day-age OEC, and framework, which (framework) takes a non-literal interpretation. Maybe you don't, but that doesn't make you the spokesman for all OEC's.

[dayage]

Adam_777,

I have and have read MacArthur's book.

He makes clear that Ross does not believe in evolution (page 57), but then tries to confuse his readers on Ross' teaching (pg. 59).

Reasons to Believe's statement on Humans:

We believe God created mankind in His image and likeness (having rational, moral, relational, and spiritual capacities) to fellowship with Him and give Him glory. Human beings are therefore the crown of God's creation (possessing inherent dignity and moral worth), and thus distinct in kind from all other life on earth. Adam and Eve, the first human beings, chose to rebel against God and go their own autonomous way. As a result, all of mankind became separated from God, the image of God in man distorted, and the sinful nature passed on to all their progeny. Because of original sin (which includes both corruption and guilt), unregenerate human beings are incapable of pleasing or commending themselves to God. The only remedy for mankind's pitiful predicament is redemption through faith in Jesus Christ.

http://www.reasons.org/about-us/our-beliefs

Hominids like neanderthals were not human. They were animals. As I pointed out:

Were things like Neanderthals human? No. We have over 12 mtDNA samples and at least one nearly completed nuclear DNA sample that shows they were not human.

What do you do with them?


jlay,

The Day-age view is a literal interpretation of Genesis one. The yom are long instead of short.

[Adam_777]

Well, I guess I stand corrected, I'm sorry. I didn't intend to misrepresent Hugh Ross' position but I must say I find it a little unusual.

[Adam_777]

Why should he retract it? We do indeed hear from (some) YEC'rs exactly that. Maybe you don't, but that doesn't make you the spokesman for all YEC's nor does it invalidate what he said.

His statement was dishonest. It was directed at Dr. Gary Parker, His seminar, and something he never said. I like to reserve passes for that kind of dishonesty to unbelievers.

[dayage]

As I glanced back through MacArthur's book I could not let this one go.

On page 71 he accuses Augustine of being influenced by Greek philosophy:

Augustine wrote, "Assuridly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time." That was precisely what Augustine's study of secular philosophers had taught him. In other words, his views on this question were, after all, an accommodation to secular opinion.

So what does MacArthur believe about time (page 72)?

But along with the universe, God created time. That, I believe, is the very thing the words "In the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 mean to teach. With God's first creative activity, time emerged from eternity.

I guess MacArthur has fallen victim to these same secular opinions.

[Adam_777]

That' sounds remarkably similar to what was said when Galileo dared to suggest the earth revolved around the sun...

...Reasoning backwards on the basis of implications to one's theology in effect elevates one's theology above the Scriptures and truth itself.

I asked for the definitive evidence that the earth is old to sway me and there is none even remotely conclusive. People who buy the OEC view buy a hodgepodge of assumptions and circular reasoning that the secular world has passed off as fact when it's not.

Nobody can physically prove the age of the earth with just the physical data. The theory of an old earth is untestable. It must be believed with a boat load of assumptions. This short video puts it correctly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo

It may seem dated but the information it provides is concise and direct.

Since tempers are flaring I'm going to share a little candor to show that I do think through things even if they seem to run counter to my belief.

If I were to answer the question:

What is the weakest part in your argument? It would have to do with our ability to detect light and its speed.

I think there are lots of great evidences against an old earth and they far outweigh the competing views but if I had to pick the weakest point in the young universe model it would have to be what we seem to observe occurring at great distances.

I firmly believe that God made a mature universe and that includes the light already present. However when we see a nova occur today it stands to reason that it actually took place as long ago as it took the light to reach us. I know there are assumptions involved and I believe the answer to this will be profound and simple at the same time but in the name of being transparent I admit this is one area that is a real noodle scratcher.

I started this thread a while ago and it kind of flopped:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=1934

I was hoping to get some feed back on what we actually see and how they actually crunch numbers on things like movement and image enhancement.

The one thing that makes me feel like this isn't that big of an issue is the fact that I really don't think astronomers are as sure about what they're looking at as they purport.

Still, in the name of being transparent, this one still has me scratching my head.

[zoegirl]

I believe I've posted this before but

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5639

A young-universe creationist is in a very difficult spot. If he holds that God created the light in transit, he also has to hold that we have no way of knowing that anything further than 10,000 light years away actually exists. We can't see it. We're not seeing it; we're seeing an image that God created in transit. The light from it won't reach us for a billion years.
You see, the argument from young-earthers regarding star light is that God not only created the galaxies in deep space, but He also created all the light between that star and earth. This is why we can see them now even though the universe is young.

My question is, how do you know the stars are really there? You don't see the light of anything that existed. You're seeing an image created in transit of an event-- watch this-- that never took place.

If all we're seeing is an image that God created in transit, then the only way we're going to see the actual thing that exists is if we wait around another billion years for the light of the actual star to reach us. Who of us believes the Lord will tarry that long? Not a billion years. Which means we'll never see it, will we? We'll never see what God actually created, not the thing itself.

Doesn't that throw into question the existence of anything in outer space at all? Because, in fact, since we'll never see the thing itself-- and what we see is not the thing, but an image God created in transit-- well then, why would God ever need to create the thing in the first place? The image would be fully adequate for God's purpose. The only thing God would have to create is the light image, because we'd never see the thing itself anyway. But doesn't the Scripture seem to indicate that what we see are the very things that God created?

You see, this "God created light in transit" view is kind of misleading, because we think of it like the steady glow of a light bulb. There's a light bulb way out there in space and just a steady glow in between. God could put that glow from me to it and I could see the glow.

But the images we actually see in outer space-- that, according to young earthers, were allegedly created in transit by God-- are images of turbulent events, not just a steady glow.

Let me give you an illustration. Astronomers looking through their telescopes see a super nova explosion a billion light years away. (Super nova is when a star explodes and sends its material spewing out into space.) What exist now, at this moment, are the random bits of the old star which, allegedly, is the condition God actually created six to ten thousand years ago.

What this means is that the star the astronomers saw explode never existed. The super nova never happened. This seems to suggest that God created the illusion of the universe and not the universe itself, because that which allegedly exists, we will never see. That which allegedly exists, we'll never see, and that which we actually see never existed.

If that's the case, then I think it's fair to ask ourselves what else we think exists, but doesn't? How much more of the world is just an illusion created by God? How do we know what is real and what is not?

At this point, you can't fall back on the Bible, for two reasons. First, the Bible seems to say that God created actual heavenly bodies, not just images to aid us in some way. Yet in this view, that is not the case. Second, even the words on the pages of my Bible reach my mind through light images. Why should I trust that what I see looking down when I'm reading is real when I can't trust what I see gazing up at the night sky?

Doesn't this begin to create a skepticism about the existence of real things? A skepticism that could collapse into solipsism, the theory that the self is the only thing that can be known: I'm the only one that exists, and my perceptions.

This view, then, undermines all observational disciplines, including science and history. Because we don't know if we're seeing the thing itself or merely a fabricated image, an illusion of something that doesn't exist.

Let me say it again. What's really there, we never see. What we do see was never there. There were no super nova explosions billions of years ago. Those things never happened. The only thing we see are images of explosions that never took place.

This would mean that virtually everything I see in the heavens-- anything outside our solar system-- isn't real. It's simply a light image of events that never took place, an illusion.

Why make stars so far away that we can't see them? Why make events appear to our eyes that never happened? There's a simple word for it. It's called deception. That's what God would be guilty of if that's really the way it happened.

As an old-earther, I'm going to say that evidence for an ancient universe is in the heavens because scientific testing shows us that these stars are far away and their light takes a long time to reach us. Therefore, if we're seeing light from those stars, and they're a billion light years away, then those stars must have existed for at least a billion years.

The counter from a young-earther is, No, wait, you don't understand. God actually created the light in transit. If God created everything in six days, then He had to create the star, too, because it does say He created the heavens and the earth. I'm thinking this is what they're going to hold.

So, He created the star and the earth and the light in between, which sounds fine if you're thinking of the star like a light bulb that is giving off a steady glow. But what we have in the galaxies are not just simply light bulbs giving off a steady glow, and you have this undifferentiated stream of glow flowing through the universe that God creates. Rather, what we have are light images of specific events in the universe, like super nova explosions, for example. So, if we see a super nova explosion that appears to be a billion light years away, this suggests, from my view, that it actually happened a billion years ago.

But a young-earther is going to have to say, No, that image is just something God created in transit. He just created it. It didn't really happen because there was no "billion years ago." Instead, the only thing that God actually created are all these little bits and pieces floating around in the universe that look like they were the result of that explosion that never happened.

You call that deception? That's my point. God doesn't do that, I suspect.

There's one other point to that, too. If this is the case, actually-- if the earth is only six to ten thousand years old-- then nothing outside of our solar system...

[tape ended here]

What a young-earther is going to have to say is that the star never exploded because it's just a light image that was created in transit. It looks like it exploded a billion years ago, but there was nothing here a billion years ago. What we actually have here now are just bits and pieces floating around. And what we see that looks like a billion years ago is not the super nova that exploded and gave us the bits and pieces we have now, but instead is simply an image that God made in between.

My point is simply that we have observational evidence that seems to indicate an ancient universe. And the solution-- the way young-earthers would get around that-- creates an absolutely unacceptable situation in which we'd have to admit that all galactic phenomenon are simply images and illusions created by God. And we have no way of knowing whether things actually exist out there today that somehow correspond with those phenomenon, because we can't see those things yet. It will be a billion years before we actually see those things.

I think that this view leads to an absolutely untenable situation and encourages incredible skepticism. Because if that's the case, and what I see are simply images created in transit, then I have no confidence that there's anything beyond those images. Because, actually, God didn't need anything more than the images. He doesn't need the thing itself, because we won't see the thing itself for a billion years.

For more thougths http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa.htm

Maybe, just maybe, Go'd's creation is just that transparent!! If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck. If over 20 pieces of evidence show great age in the universe, maybe, just maybe, it isn't young!! God's creation is remarkably trustworthy.

Why you think otherwise is the noodle scratcher.

[Adam_777]

That whole argument is so wrong that I can apply it to your own assumptions and it produces the exact same "problem". According to that poorly reasoned article, God is a liar because we are seeing light from things that may or may not be there and we don't know for sure. Zoegirl, if we see a nova take place next week then God was lying for the entire time because that nova was actually there when we were deceived into thinking it was actually a star because that's what we saw.

That article you linked is interesting. It references the work of Ken Miller a double minded scoffer who goes to his ritual of worship on Sunday, to his god, and then all week formulates new ways to scoff at those who say you can detect the handy work of God.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old

[jlay]

Whoops! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 114024.htm

If one assumes that the speed of light is constant, which science doesn't even really beleive. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. It is proven there are things that affect the speed of light. Water is one of them. So if there were anomilies like water vapor in space, it could present the universe as being much older than it really is. And water is just one we know of. Gravity is another. But those are all minor.

In fact science talks of black holes that bend and curve light. Black holes, which is basically a giant "isn't." How do measure something that isn't? Anyway, they are variables nonetheless.

So, we think we can observe something from millions of miles away that is supposedly traveled at 299,792,458 m/s, over an alleged billions of years.
If the universe is in fact expanding, at what point did it expand from? If the universe is expanding, then everything we now observe was much closer together at some point. You don't have to be scientists to figure that out.
I've seen this obvious point ignored when the "constant" debate arrises. It is pretty well accepted that the universe is expanding. We can't even fathom, or know how fast, or if that has always been the same. But most of these theories begin with an assumption. Here is a good example. And if you read, you will see that an assumption, not a fact has been introduced. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/P ... tants.html

The ratio of electromagnetic and gravitational interactions would then be large simply because the Universe is old.

Plop the assumption in the theory, skew the results. No big deal.

When you study how the speed of light is measured it really blows your mind. Science beleives that the best atomic clocks are accurate to about one part in 10to the 13. Minute right? Not when you are talking millions and billions of miles. Or, when you are talking about a universe that was a 1/3 its current size, or 1/2 or 1/10, etc, over its history.

[Byblos]

Why should he retract it? We do indeed hear from (some) YEC'rs exactly that. Maybe you don't, but that doesn't make you the spokesman for all YEC's nor does it invalidate what he said.

His statement was dishonest. It was directed at Dr. Gary Parker, His seminar, and something he never said. I like to reserve passes for that kind of dishonesty to unbelievers.

I don't know how you got that from what I said. They were two distinct statements one about Dr. Parker's link having said nothing new, and another about YECers who believe a literal interpretation of Genesis is THEIR interpretation. Anyone who disagrees with them does not believe the plain word of God. Please, we've heard it a miliion times. And although Dr. Parker alludes to that in his sermon (I'll have to go back and listen to it a second time but I will if I have to) my second statement had nothing to do with him.

Now I'll expect a retraction from you for assuming I was dishonest.

[Adam_777]

Since you think people can't scroll and review, I'll save them some time:

I spent an hour yesterday listening to a link you (or jlay I'm not sure) provided (the biologist turned YEC Christian) and it was an hour wasted as nothing of any value was discussed other than the usual gibberish we hear from YECers how we're not Christian because we don't believe God could have done it in 6 days.

What did you say was discussed in that Seminar?... Well, the part highlighted in red. Byblos, a simple apology would be satisfactory unless of course you have an ax to grind.