Evidence for God from Science

So people do shift. In fact, it seems so odd to me, but Jac shifted from an OEC slant over to YEC.

Does anyone have proof that Jac was ever an OEC?

I know he keeps saying he switched, but I don't believe it. For Jac to say he switched from OEC to YEC, that would mean Jac would have to admit he was wrong about OEC. And we all know Jac never admits he's wrong about anything.

Just a little belated birthday teasing for Jac. Happy Birthday Professor!!!!!!

Kurieuo wrote:Jac, thank you for responding.

You've moved me to reclaim a coherent understanding of "literal" again.

Many years ago I debated someone else on this board re: "literal" vs "allegorical". Being Day-Age, I obviously argued for a "literal" reading of Genesis, but then to make a point he absolutely confused me by pushing me to defend what I meant by "literal". This wasn't immediately obvious, but over the course of our exchanges I tripped up many times in my definition of what a "literal understanding" was -- going from "literal reading" to "what the author literally meant" and then back again.

Seeing my equivocation left me confused as to what I really meant. To the point I did not see any benefit to using the term "literal" anymore. I could never unpack it, or perhaps embarrassed by my inconsistent use of it, never thought to attempt to do so as you did here.

So for many years I dropped using the term since I felt it was almost meaningless. While I'd think many who invoke the term "literal" do not truly understand what they mean by it either -- you've done well to convince me that there is a coherent case for reclaiming it.

Will respond to the rest of your post separate, but your words have been fairly relaxed so thanks for not poking my heart.

Glad I could help! So on to some more agreement and a little disagreement

Kurieuo wrote:Clearly you don't, but likewise the YEC needs to be careful.

I've seen their own science applied to Scripture which I recall you also don't like YECs doing.

Quite right, and as you acknowledge below, I take them to task for making the same mistakes.

However, more than that, any way you slice it, we are always going apply reason to Scripture. It is unavoidable.
This "reason" often includes many things about reality and how we perceive the world.
Such that, we will be more prone to accept one reading over another, where two or more exist.

Sure. My objection, to be clear, is not applying "reason" to Scripture. It is using information that the author had no access to in trying to figure out what the author was trying to get across.

Perhaps a not-so-readily obvious eisogesis that I see YECs guilty of pertains to popularised thought circulated during the early 20th century.
That is, the Scofield Reference Bible where many likely first encountered Archbishop James Ussher's calculation of the date of Creation as 4004 BC.
And the spark this lit about the correct interpretation of the Genesis Creation for many churches and Christians.

It is important to know the influencing factors.
Certain theological ideas and thinking (e.g., an acceptance of Ussher's chronology) was a highly influencing factor for a YEC interpretation.
As such, I believe many YECs are guilty of reading into Scripture what is not actually there.

So while YECs may not as evidently draw upon science as a source of knowledge when reading Scripture (I believe they still do), it still has its own modern influences.

Correct, and a good example. I don't know if you know or remember, but I have argued that Ussher's calculations must be wrong because it is clear from the text that Moses intended to leave gaps in the biblical text. If someone wants to know why the numbers are there if not to offer a calculation, I suggest that it is to draw an important contrast with the later average ages. That makes the reader asks why lifespans were shortened, and that gets us back to another influence of the Fall.

Look, the moment a Compatibilist denies "literalism" -- a plain reading of Scripture as you previously defined -- then they stop being a Compatibilist.

However, as long as a particular referent is justified (e.g., yom either sunrise to sunset, or as a symbol of an unspecified length of time), then we still have a "literal" interpretation.

So just because a Day-Age person might read through the lens of their scientific understanding (and we all carry our own lens -- no one is entirely neutral), and opt for one referent over another with a Hebrew word, doesn't mean it is not a literal interpretation.

Rather, there are possible "literal" interpretations of Scripture, and by that I mean ones that remain faithful to Scripture according to the original language -- a plain understanding according to the original language and literary styles.

If your compliment of the OE Day-Age position is a full compliment because it treats Scripture literally, then no amount science brought to the table can render that interpretation non-literal.

This is a fair point. I should be very honest here and say that I have two objections to OEC at this point. I should NOT say that the eisogetical nature of OEC renders it non-literal. That's not fair of me. What I ought to say is that I see two errors, one related to the problem of literalism and the other related to the problem of eisogesis. But the latter does not cause the former (but perhaps the former the latter . . .)

Re literalism: I'm going to just say what I've said before plainly -- I deny that yom can literally refer to an age. I fully admit that if it could,then OEC could be a literal interpretation, and I affirm that OEC is attempting to be literal (again, to its credit) in its claim that yom can literally refer to an age. But having done an exhaustive study of the word in the Pentateuch, I say that the basic claim is wrong. Yom does not, cannot, and never does refer to an age. Obviously, that claim needs to be fleshed out a lot and requires a lot of qualification, but what that discussion is done, I see no room for a series of ages in Gen 1.

Re eisogesis: I don't think that OEC advocates have shown that their interpretation is warranted by the text. I think the only way they are able to establish warrant is by appealing to modern science. Take that out, and they can't show that yom refers naturally or literally to an age. And therefore, it is eisogetical. And that, by the way, is also the reason (I believe) that NO ONE IN HISTORY suggested an OEC interpretation of Genesis 1 prior to modern science's findings. Sure, there were plenty of non-literal interpretations suggested. But the claim that the seven yomim literally refer to ages? No, that's entirely absent, as far as I can tell.

It is a rather odd conclusion that a literal reading of Scripture can be denied on the basis of an interpreter's reading lens rather than what Scripture itself actually says.

Consider your argument as:
1) If one reads Scripture through the lens of Science, then the resulting interpretation is not a literal interpretation.
2) Compatibilists read Scripture through the lens of Science.
3) Therefore the Compatibilist has a non-literal interpretation.

While obviously valid, the argument is unsound. It does not follow.
It doesn't follow that a non-literal interpretation will be reached just because one brings to the table a certain lens.
At least, no more than say carrying a lens that includes James Ussher's 4004 BC date of creation would lead to a non-literal interpretation.

We all have our own lens, and in interpreting Scripture everyone has to carry some sort of logic and reason in.
Yet, our reasoning ability is often limited by emotions and outside influences whether it is science, our culture, friends and family or thoughts of others we respect.
Thankfully, it is not the lens that determines what is not a literal interpretation, but rather what the text itself allows.

Correct. Thank you for pointing that out and helping me clarify my concern.

As do YECs carry the same burden.
Would we expect anything less than for a warranted reading to by justified by anything other than the text alone?

Yes, they do. And to the extent they appeal to something other than the text, they err.

But to say that we must bring nothing to the table, no lens through which to read the text, such objectivity can be had by none except God.
I'm sure there is some famous saying somewhere I could find that helps. But, I can't be bothered searching for one so will invent one of my own with some irony:
"One who believes they are objective, subjectively believes they are."

I never said we bring NOTHING to the table. On the contrary, I had a discussion with Audi recently on two ways in which we can use exta biblical sources to help us understand the biblical writer's meaning. With that said, I STRONGLY object to the implication I'm reading from you that none can be objective. That is a self-defeating statement. If no one can be objective, then your own statement is subjective and meaningless, subjective since ALL statements are subjective, including that one, and meaningless since ALL interpretation would come down to what I and ONLY I think it means, and not you the author (and that regardless of your protest, since I would have to decide what your protests mean!).

So, no, objectivity is possible. To deny that is to deny all meaning.

I believe Day-Age proponents like Hugh Ross and the likes of the Biblical scholar Gleason Archer when he was alive, go to great lengths to show a valid "literal" interpretation of Scripture.
You may disagree and believe it an incorrect literal interpretation, but you can't fail Hugh Ross' interpretation based upon his influences any more than he can fault you for your own.

See my comments above. The interpretation is not literal because they fail to establish that yom can mean an age. It is eisogetical because they only hold it due to the influence of modern science; that is, the position on what Moses intended the word to refer to cannot be established by the text alone.

At the end of the day we want to know the truth. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
I believe the more Truth someone knows, the closer they are to finding the Way and attaining Life.
So, if the YEC interpretation is not true, then any source of truth that can show that is relevant.

However, I would agree that it would be beneficial to treat Scripture in isolation. Truly, none of us can do this. But as much as is possible, yes.
Challenge interpretations of Scripture separate from presuppositions gained via other sources of knowledge as much as possible.

But, there is so much knowledge one needs to do this, such that I don't see neutrality is possible in a Scripture alone approach.
For example, to read the original Hebrew we need to be taught or know how to read it.
We also should carry with us some good hermetical methods. Which ones should we follow and adhere to and why?
Also, what theological beliefs should we start with? Do we accept God as the author of all Scripture that we have?
Can we bring other books in the Bible to bear on earlier books? Or should we just read the current book stand alone.

So, I don't think it is as black and white as to truly not read Scripture devoid of knowledge gained via other sources of truth.
Given Scripture deals with truth, and physical sciences -- an understanding of the world around us -- deals with truth, then both do have a common bond.

Therefore, I think that science should be brought to bear on Scriptural interpretations if one is seeking Truth.
And when I invoke "science" here, I'm not necessarily talking about your scientific peer reviewed theories and the like.
I'm simply talking about our own direct experiences with the world and understanding thereof.
For example, it makes sense that the Earth is round and not flat when navigating in real life whether by sea or air.
We see apples fall from trees and so accept something like gravity must exist.

All that said, I'd be extremely skeptical and suspicious if there were no Scriptural arguments against the YEC position.
And you and I both know that there are many Scriptural arguments made for Day-Age and against YEC.
You have just weighed them as unimportant or mistaken, and see more Scriptural issues with an OEC Day-Age interpretation than a YEC one.

Again, the question is how we use reason, not what sources we use. Objectivity is and must be possible. And yes, there are arguments based on Scripture against YEC. The problems are 1) those arguments do not work in my view (particularly on Rom 5:12) and 2) those arguments conveniently do not come from Gen 1. So now you get into the deeper problem of reading the NT back into the OT. Now, I'll openly admit that I am in a HUGE minority on this, but I absolutely object to using later revelation to change the meaning of a former. If you can show a meaning is in a given text, you can confirm that meaning from the NT, but you can't base it on the NT (or later revelation in general).

But all that gets to a general frustration I have with the way people argue these days. Take the DS debate . . . its detractors never challenge the argument FOR DS. They just challenge it on other issues entirely. That's what I feel like is going on here. For if OEC is right, you ought to be able to show IN GENESIS 1 that the YEC reading fails. I just haven't seen that.

I get what you are saying.

You know, Day-Age accept that if mankind had not sinned, then death would not have spread to humanity.
So presuming it's not some animal dying that you're talking to, you can still say "It was not suppose to be this way. You have suffered a great evil, and God will make it right."

However, I feel that is too simple an explanation for YEC or OEC. For example, the common push back from skeptics is, "Couldn't God with all his power have stopped sin from destroying his good creation?" mixed with, "Wouldn't God is he truly loved us have stopped sin?" And now you get into other theological complexities.

I don't think you can make that clean of a break. Suffering in nature very often causes suffering and death in human beings.

And that my dear friend is where we respectfully part from each other.

I'll just grant what I believe regarding OEC Day-Age is a deficient theology.
BUT, thankfully God can use the deficient for good.

Speaking for myself, sites like ReasonsToBelieve.org and GodandScience.org helped to strengthen and spur me on as a Christian.
While more so in the past, they have both had a very positive influence on my Christianity and walk with God.

I certainly don't believe they're a deceiving tool of Satan like many a YEC would claim.
Not all YECs! But your Ken Ham/Dr Dino/Answers in Genesis variety.
Ahh heck. This is might start an argument huh?
Hopefully I didn't poke any hearts there!

Haha, nah, no pokes. I don't think that RTB or related cites are hurting people (too much! ). God can use a deficient theology to bring people closer to the truth. I'd rather Audi be OEC than an atheist. I'd rather her just believe Scripture and be YEC, but such is the case of the relative importance of tertiary doctrines.

I'll let the Ham poke slide. I know you can't help yourself.

RickD wrote:

So people do shift. In fact, it seems so odd to me, but Jac shifted from an OEC slant over to YEC.

Does anyone have proof that Jac was ever an OEC?

I know he keeps saying he switched, but I don't believe it. For Jac to say he switched from OEC to YEC, that would mean Jac would have to admit he was wrong about OEC. And we all know Jac never admits he's wrong about anything.

Just a little belated birthday teasing for Jac. Happy Birthday Professor!!!!!!

EVIDENCE!

And yes, i wuz rong

I think God let me be wrong about that as a thorn in my flesh, that I might not become arrogant, ya know what I mean?

edit:

With that said, I don't know that I was ever a strong OEC defender. If someone accused me of adhering to OEC for apologetic reasons, I might have been forced to plead guilty. But perhaps I was. I truly don't remember, and what I do think I remember might be an interpretation from my current perspective. I would be interested to go back through my posts on the old boars (ca. 2002), but alas, those are very long gone. For shame, for shame . . .

edit2:

K wrote:So people do shift. In fact, it seems so odd to me, but Jac shifted from an OEC slant over to YEC.
Damn you Jac! Don't you know it's rain? You'll be kicking yourself when we replay in the hereafter.

I don't know about you, but I'm going to heaven wearing steel trousers, as much kicking (from myself and others) as I'm expecting to get . . . so if we add this to the list, I have a feeling I barely notice!

Ok Jac, time to turn up the heat a little.

We find much agreement, and I didn't set out to do this but I couldn't help myself responding to some things we part ways on.
And I got so into it that my response would probably cover a small book.

I seriously wasn't trying to debate anything, but it turned out that way as I suppose your response was a little too.
Actually, now that I think of it, you provoked me! I see what you're doing. Trying to draw me in.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I'm sure you'll enjoy my push backs.

Jac3510 wrote:Sure. My objection, to be clear, is not applying "reason" to Scripture. It is using information that the author had no access to in trying to figure out what the author was trying to get across.

For me, divine inspiration entails that while we read the author in the text, their literary style and thoughts, Scripture is ultimately God-breathed from Genesis to Revelation.
So, as I see it, we consider it authoritative, not because Moses or some respected prophet wrote it. They are just men, and so able to err.
BUT, given we are both Christians who believe Scripture is true, we believe it is such because God ultimately guided the pen (or writers).

As such, there is a common thread that runs through all of Scripture, from humanity's fall in Genesis, through Israel's impossible task of keeping God's covenant, to the foreshadows of the Messiah in Leviticus and all the rest.
All the symbols... foreshadowing... prophecies... and the passages that become clear in light of what God specially reveals to us later in what we accept as the Canon of Scripture.

We see in the NT writings some quoting from the Old Testament that are often passed off as prophecies or having dual meanings.
Sometimes I scratch my head -- really? There was a dual meaning to that?
If someone other than Jesus or Paul were saying it, I'd just smile consider them performing extreme eisegesis.

Surely the original authors, at least in some instances, would have likely been unaware to these additional meanings being penned.

So... what is more important?
That we figure out what the author was trying to say?
Or that we understand what God is trying to say?

I do believe both are important, but really at the end of the day I'm interested in what God is trying to communicate to us via Scripture.
I'm only interested in Scripture because I believe God influenced the text. It is God's special revelation to us that He somehow inspired, controlled and protected.
So I believe it to be a good source of historical and spiritual truths.
And, I see a common thread, a story about us and God, throughout it all that helps me to make sense of the world that we find ourselves in.

Jac wrote:Re literalism: I'm going to just say what I've said before plainly -- I deny that yom can literally refer to an age. I fully admit that if it could,then OEC could be a literal interpretation, and I affirm that OEC is attempting to be literal (again, to its credit) in its claim that yom can literally refer to an age. But having done an exhaustive study of the word in the Pentateuch, I say that the basic claim is wrong. Yom does not, cannot, and never does refer to an age. Obviously, that claim needs to be fleshed out a lot and requires a lot of qualification, but what that discussion is done, I see no room for a series of ages in Gen 1.

I'd be interested to read your reasoning on denying yom literally meaning as an unspecified period of time.
Can you provide the link to that discussion I believe you mentioned earlier?

In reality, I often see it denoting like a "period" or "time".
For example, in Gen 2 we see yom encompassing more than a day.
Or Gen 44:32 wherein yom means "forever" or the rest of eternity.

Day-Age implies a specified "age" which is perhaps misleading.
As I see it, we are really talking about different "periods" or "times".
That, is indeed a referent to yom found in Scripture.

So it seems to me consistent with a literal/plain reading of the text,
just as much as a 24-hour "day" OR sunrise to sunset OR sunset to sunrise (not all YECs agree here).

Jac wrote:Take that out, and they can't show that yom refers naturally or literally to an age. And therefore, it is eisogetical. And that, by the way, is also the reason (I believe) that NO ONE IN HISTORY suggested an OEC interpretation of Genesis 1 prior to modern science's findings. Sure, there were plenty of non-literal interpretations suggested. But the claim that the seven yomim literally refer to ages? No, that's entirely absent, as far as I can tell.

I notice your anticipated response with the "Sure, ..." part.
I'll concede that any longer periods of time for "day" may not have been "literal", certainly not in the same way that Hugh Ross performed his exegesis in The Genesis Question.
As far as I see things, no one just accepted YEC as the default "literal" position historically either, or in the same sense as is often accepted today.
In fact, it doesn't seem until the 20th century that Creation become a prominent Christian issue.
Was this due to modern science? Perhaps, but I think otherwise. I'll add further comment below.

First... I'd again like to point out a similar point in my last post.
It does not follow that because no one in history suggested a "literal" Day-Age interpretation in the same manner accepted today, that such an interpretation is to be rejected.
It should not be rejected based on what others in history may or may not have thought, but rather based upon its merits in Scripture alone.

Furthermore, I've read many things some early Christian Fathers aka theologians said.
They are often used as supportive authorities across a range of theological issues.
A lot of words they say often seems heretical, in fact I'm sure would be considered heretical to an orthodox Christianity.
By and large we can forgive them, because they had to think through and reconcile many tough theological issues that Christians today take for granted.

So, it really doesn't surprise me that a "literal" hermeneutic like we appreciate, wasn't so commonly used throughout history. They had bigger issues to fry.
And when it is, for example Luther, well a challenge is made on doctrines exploited people and matters of salvation that are much more important.

So Creation appears to have become a prominent issue in the 20th Century.

Upon first glance for the YEC, I can see that it might seem suspicious that controversy over Creation aligns with modern scientific thought (although, modern scientific thought perhaps started 200 years earlier in the 18th century).
Since Compatibilists freely look at both nature and Scripture, to YECs this casts even more suspicion on the Day-Age interpretation.

BUT, coincidentally, controversy over Creation really wasn't sparked until Schofield Reference Bible took up The Gap theory.
And then, this really sparked discussion re: creation. And, this is when the YEC position started becoming popular.
So, I think "modern science" is a mistaken correlation.

Now again, even if there is a correlation, it does not follow that the Day-Age interpretation is an illegitimate or incorrect interpretation.
That has to be proven on it's own grounds. And that my friend we agree is again done by reading the actual text.

Just like it is unsound to reason that the Day-Age interpretation non-literal because someone looks through a lens of science, it is equally unsound to believe it non-literal because no one in history put it forward, and it is equally unsound to believe it non-literal due to suspicions of correlation to "modern science's" findings. All these are, as you know, genetic fallacies.

RATHER, we must approach the text as it is.
And if outside truth illuminates a meaning in Scripture that was previously ignored by the Biblical scholar, then what is wrong with that?
It is only wrong if the Biblical scholar distorts the meaning of the words and text, and this is to be debated on it's own grounds using Scripture and an understanding of the original language.

Finally, any accusation that science is being read into the text, distorting a plain or literal meaning, is 100% unconvincing to me personally.
The reason being, as I sometimes admit to YECs in debate when they make this accusation, I had no understanding of science or age of Earth when I first adopted a "non-Earth day" understanding of Genesis 1.
The reaction of some YECs is interesting, because they then try to assert some higher authority both scientifically and Scripturally. BUT, that's irrelevant here.
So in all my Evangelical "blind faith" beauty early on I was largely ignorant to modern science.
I was equally ignorant to Christian theology although I believed in Jesus "as my Lord and saviour" and believed He died on the cross "for my sins."
(I knew the language but the revelation of what all that religious language meant didn't come until later in my life).

Now, this doesn't set me up as any authority in any matter to accurately understand Genesis.
It does however set me up as an example of what someone reading Genesis 1 might plainly understand the text as saying.
So to cover some history of a faith-driven and non-rationally grounded Kurieuo.

Very early on, I suppose my initial understanding of Genesis 1 was ordinary days.
BUT, I equally didn't really carefully read what was actually said.
Except for reading passages here or there, I actually didn't read the Bible until later in life.
So I put down these initial beliefs to perhaps a saturation of Christian beliefs in Sunday school or the like.

And then at a time in my life, when I did venture to properly read the Bible, I read Genesis more seriously and was stumped.
The Sun is created on Day 4? It didn't make sense to me to read them as literal days. How can I move on until I resolve this?
And that it was evening and morning that were the first day, second day, etc. Say what?
I can't be sure, but I do know I wasn't satisfied with reading the days as a literal day.
As such, I took a symbolic approach to the days of my own accord. The Genesis 1 text led me there.
I did not have any understanding of yom or the creation debate.
Neither did I understand the age of the Earth and other scientific matters.
This was MY plain reading of Genesis 1.

Fast forward several years.
Ken Ham turned me to believe the days were in fact literal days. You may recall me going over this before on this board.
But, as I listened to my Dad's tapes, Ham said "days" cannot mean anything other than a literal day.
I was unaware of any dispute and accepted what he said as truth, so I suppose that would have made me YEC.
And then, I eventually struck upon GodandScience.org.
A lot of my earlier beliefs were re-affirmed, but with Scriptural justification as well as science.

So, I know that in my own experience at least, my actual plain reading of Genesis clashes with what you believe anyone approaching the text neutrally would believe.
Equally, my plain reading was perhaps not a literal reading for I considered the days symbolic (unaware of the yom distinctions).
A "literal" YEC reading that you'd advocate I found to be quite confusing of the text.
I'm not lying or playing you here. You know me better than that.
Unless these memories of mine have been implanted, I'll play you my life in heaven (if it still matters then ).

Although your charge that an interpretation like the Day-Age is eisegesis because of influences from modern science is fallacious (genetic fallacy).
Even if granted as sound, in my own life this is certainly not true.

So, I see nothing wrong with sources of truth illuminating other sources of truth so long as they remain faithful to each other.
This is the Compatibilist approach, and it does not necessarily lead to distortion of either nature or Scripture.
Any such claim is to be argued within the arena of each truth source.

Jac wrote:

K wrote:But to say that we must bring nothing to the table, no lens through which to read the text, such objectivity can be had by none except God.
I'm sure there is some famous saying somewhere I could find that helps. But, I can't be bothered searching for one so will invent one of my own with some irony:
"One who believes they are objective, subjectively believes they are."

I never said we bring NOTHING to the table. On the contrary, I had a discussion with Audi recently on two ways in which we can use exta biblical sources to help us understand the biblical writer's meaning. With that said, I STRONGLY object to the implication I'm reading from you that none can be objective. That is a self-defeating statement. If no one can be objective, then your own statement is subjective and meaningless, subjective since ALL statements are subjective, including that one, and meaningless since ALL interpretation would come down to what I and ONLY I think it means, and not you the author (and that regardless of your protest, since I would have to decide what your protests mean!).

So, no, objectivity is possible. To deny that is to deny all meaning.

It is true that I believe no one can be objective.
That however, does not mean as I think you're taking it to mean, that no one can know objective truth.

Why do I say this? Well, unless one can remove themselves from the equation, any analysing it going to be polluted with subjectivity.
This is why I believe no one can be truly objective. It is a myth perhaps fashioned by a saturated by the Scientism of our age.
Post-modernity is right to question the reality of an objective observer, but wrong to believe this means we can't know any truth.
Hopefully you see a difference between the two.

Rather, God made us humans as rational and passionate beings.
It therefore seems to me that both rationality and the heart, when properly aligned, are designed to be truth conducive.
An unguided and undesigned evolutionary process, of course can't justify this is the case. It can't even justify our reason is truth conducive.
But, if it is true that God designed us, especially a good God who doesn't want to deceive us, then this is the way we best work out truth.

Imagine if for every truth claim we actually had to logically prove it?
Instead, our experiences in life, realising we were gullible here and there, gut intuitions and feelings, allow us to quickly hone in on truth.
To the point they can start acting as baloney filters to quickly filter out what is true and false.
Of course, we can be wrong. But, amazingly people can live their lives around many truths without really justifying each one -- which would take forever.

As another example, consider a spy who is keeping tabs on another country.
He is to report back any important news. It's his job.
Now this spy has no concrete evidence, but he believes that this other country is going to launch an attack.
If you're Mr President, what do you do? Ignore the spy, or maybe secretly prepare for an attack?
I'd trust the spy. He's there for a reason, and all the signals feeding his gut intuition, I'd be unwise to heed his beliefs even if he provided no hard evidence.
The passional nature of the spy has been honed over time through his situation and job. I'd be a fool to ignore it until something more objective comes along.

We aren't purely rational creatures, we're also passional and I don't see that as a negative.
Is rationality the reason why you have been so passionate about theology and issues like these for so long?
No. It's because it appeals to who you are. You can't be objective any more than you can be impassionate.
It is your passion that drives you to discover the truth of matters like these.
So how can you possibly be objective? How can I be objective? We can't.

But, unlike what Modernity would have you think, I believe "passional reason" is truth conducive.
Objectivity is not, for to believe we're objective blinds us to our own prejudices.
That's not to say we don't try to be objective. There is obvious benefit to trying to be so.
But, we should not pretend that we can be 100% objective.
Even if you have checks and balances can you really ensure everything is covered?
You won't be able to cover them all.

William Wainwright explores this in his book, Reason and the Heart: A Prolegomenon to a Critique of Passional Reason. Brilliant book that puts reason in its true place.

As rational as you know I am, I do not accept that "reason" should be solely used devoid of experience, emotions, feelings, etc.
Rather "reason" should inform "the heart" and vice-versa and together they can be more truth conducive because that God designed us that way.
There are other factors at play that can hinder discovering truth, but that is for a different discussion perhaps.

Jac wrote:

K wrote:I believe Day-Age proponents like Hugh Ross and the likes of the Biblical scholar Gleason Archer when he was alive, go to great lengths to show a valid "literal" interpretation of Scripture.
You may disagree and believe it an incorrect literal interpretation, but you can't fail Hugh Ross' interpretation based upon his influences any more than he can fault you for your own.

See my comments above. The interpretation is not literal because they fail to establish that yom can mean an age. It is eisogetical because they only hold it due to the influence of modern science; that is, the position on what Moses intended the word to refer to cannot be established by the text alone.

Your first complaint re: failing to establish yom means an age or period of time would obviously require debate...

Hopefully my earlier response shows that an interpretation of the text should be judged on its own merits, and not based upon what may have caused them to hold it. Such is clearly irrelevant and as such fallacious. Furthermore, new knowledge may in fact illuminate truth previously ignored in Scripture.

And as for the position Moses held we can really only guess what God did or did not reveal to him. However, it also seems unnecessary that Moses understood absolutely everything God intended in Scripture. Jesus and Paul referred to double-meanings found in Scripture that may have been unknown to the original authors -- however not God who breathed it.

Jac wrote:

K wrote:At the end of the day we want to know the truth. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
I believe the more Truth someone knows, the closer they are to finding the Way and attaining Life.
So, if the YEC interpretation is not true, then any source of truth that can show that is relevant.

However, I would agree that it would be beneficial to treat Scripture in isolation. Truly, none of us can do this. But as much as is possible, yes.
Challenge interpretations of Scripture separate from presuppositions gained via other sources of knowledge as much as possible.

But, there is so much knowledge one needs to do this, such that I don't see neutrality is possible in a Scripture alone approach.
For example, to read the original Hebrew we need to be taught or know how to read it.
We also should carry with us some good hermetical methods. Which ones should we follow and adhere to and why?
Also, what theological beliefs should we start with? Do we accept God as the author of all Scripture that we have?
Can we bring other books in the Bible to bear on earlier books? Or should we just read the current book stand alone.

So, I don't think it is as black and white as to truly not read Scripture devoid of knowledge gained via other sources of truth.
Given Scripture deals with truth, and physical sciences -- an understanding of the world around us -- deals with truth, then both do have a common bond.

Therefore, I think that science should be brought to bear on Scriptural interpretations if one is seeking Truth.
And when I invoke "science" here, I'm not necessarily talking about your scientific peer reviewed theories and the like.
I'm simply talking about our own direct experiences with the world and understanding thereof.
For example, it makes sense that the Earth is round and not flat when navigating in real life whether by sea or air.
We see apples fall from trees and so accept something like gravity must exist.

All that said, I'd be extremely skeptical and suspicious if there were no Scriptural arguments against the YEC position.
And you and I both know that there are many Scriptural arguments made for Day-Age and against YEC.
You have just weighed them as unimportant or mistaken, and see more Scriptural issues with an OEC Day-Age interpretation than a YEC one.

Again, the question is how we use reason, not what sources we use. Objectivity is and must be possible.

Why must it be possible? How is it possible?
As mentioned above, we're passionate beings.

We don't even know what all our personal influences are to counter them.
Believing we're objective can lead to self-deceiving, blinded to our own influences.
However, again, this doesn't mean can't get at truth.

Jac wrote:And yes, there are arguments based on Scripture against YEC. The problems are 1) those arguments do not work in my view (particularly on Rom 5:12)

Yes, we discussed this passage as well as its fuller context in the past.
You had valid points and made a good case for your reading.
But, there is another interpretation that I present that is kinder to a Day-Age interpretation.
Which from memory, you yourself didn't accept but nonetheless found reasonable.

Secondly, this is introducing extra sources into the Genesis debate.
Is this not breaking away from your second rule below, where arguments are not coming from the Genesis text?
Why is that you allow Paul's writing, but the Day-Age is not able to draw from the Creation Psalm (104), Job, Hebrews or other books of the Bible that we consider to be God-breathed?

Jac wrote:and 2) those arguments conveniently do not come from Gen 1. So now you get into the deeper problem of reading the NT back into the OT. Now, I'll openly admit that I am in a HUGE minority on this, but I absolutely object to using later revelation to change the meaning of a former. If you can show a meaning is in a given text, you can confirm that meaning from the NT, but you can't base it on the NT (or later revelation in general).

If this is the case, that you object to using later revelation to change the meaning of the former, then you must drop Romans 5:12.

You might argue that you're not changing the meaning. So would Ross, Archer and myself argue that we're not changing the meaning.
Rather the meaning is becoming more illuminated. And the literal meaning of the actual words aren't being changed, but are still well within the possible referents.

Furthermore, there are many arguments made in the Genesis text alone.
You've already mentioned yom in Genesis 2.
I earlier mentioned the creation of the Sun on day four, which renders any meaning of a literal day (earth rotation) impossible.
Even if God is the source of light as some YECs believe (which is eisegesis so I doubt that you yourself believe that).

Perhaps you translate yom to mean 12 or 24 hours? However, "12 hours" and "24 hours" are actually a literal referent of yom -- rather "sunrise to sunset" or a complete Earth rotation is.
We only say "literal 24-hour day" because that is the length of a day as we know it. But, to replace the literal day with "24 hours" is an embellishment.
Yom does not mean 24 hours, it means day and we say literal "24 hour day" to better highlight which referent is intended.

We also have the refrain which literally reads, "evening and morning, one day", "evening and morning, two day", etc.
The confusion caused by a YEC interpretation, especially with the Sun's creation on day 4, requires eisegesis to justify and this to me is just not acceptable.

In any case, I don't mean to debate. But, to simply push back on your statement that arguments do not come from Genesis 1.
Because, as I see it, they primarily do. And these arguments take Scripture in Genesis very literally.
Just like you believe Day-Age fails to remain "literally" faithful, I believe YEC actually fails to remain "literally" faithful -- for it requires some improvised explanations to properly make sense of Genesis 1.

Jac wrote:But all that gets to a general frustration I have with the way people argue these days. Take the DS debate . . . its detractors never challenge the argument FOR DS. They just challenge it on other issues entirely. That's what I feel like is going on here. For if OEC is right, you ought to be able to show IN GENESIS 1 that the YEC reading fails. I just haven't seen that.

I'm sure it's not the first time you've seen some of the "YEC failings" that I just mentioned.
Perhaps you just mean that you remain unconvinced that it fails.

And this is where our subjectiveness with all its passion and influences comes into play.
We each do our best though.

Jac wrote:

K wrote:I get what you are saying.

You know, Day-Age accept that if mankind had not sinned, then death would not have spread to humanity.
So presuming it's not some animal dying that you're talking to, you can still say "It was not suppose to be this way. You have suffered a great evil, and God will make it right."

However, I feel that is too simple an explanation for YEC or OEC. For example, the common push back from skeptics is, "Couldn't God with all his power have stopped sin from destroying his good creation?" mixed with, "Wouldn't God is he truly loved us have stopped sin?" And now you get into other theological complexities.

I don't think you can make that clean of a break. Suffering in nature very often causes suffering and death in human beings.

Of course, today it is the case that suffering in nature can cause suffering and death in human beings.
But as I read Genesis, it was God withdrawing his life-giving protection from humanity (Adam and Eve) who rejected Him.

The Tree of Life was put elsewhere thereafter. They were free to eat anything, except from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
These names obviously have meaning. Just like Australia's "Great Sandy Desert" (inventive huh?)
They quite literally represent their names I believe.

If it were a stick God said not to pick up, I'm sure that would have been called "The Stick of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."
And, if humanity trusted God and didn't pick up that stick, then God would have remained with them with His sustaining power taken care of all their needs.

Understand that it isn't natural for Humanity to be without the Creator. We're meant to be together. Dwelling in His presence.
But, we opposed the Creator and are now living out the consequences until the end when everything is rolled up like a scroll.

K wrote:

J wrote:And that my dear friend is where we respectfully part from each other.

I'll just grant what I believe regarding OEC Day-Age is a deficient theology.
BUT, thankfully God can use the deficient for good.

I'm content to have the deficient theology now, if that means I get to wear a pair of steel boots hereafter.

Hana, if the interactions betwixt Kurieuo and Jac are any indications, you might want to begin searching for additional server space - as MUCH more space will be obviously needed!

Seriously, though, I agree with Kurieuo, that to think that the Bible's original authors always understood double-functioning meanings at the time of their writings, just doesn't seem credible. How long have so many great theologicans been debating about end time prophecies (or ones considered so) and their meanings? Think John had a perfect handle on all of that when he penned "Revelation?" Not at all. And as God leaves future mysteries in prophecies meant for future revelation, I think it makes sense that He didn't reveal all in mysteries inherent in what He has told us about the distant past. There are just some mysteries that we will not totally understand in our flesh. And yet many act as if they have a perfect handle on things that they truly have no way of knowing for certain. As if God had wanted us to know certain things that He also knew would confuse Christiandom and cause lengthy and REASONABLE debate, I would think He would have provided far greater detail. So either there are certain things that He does not want us to COMPLETELY understand or that in what He communicated to the prophets had either other purposes, and possibly also, FUTURE understandings that would be revealed to us at a time of His choosing.

I don't believe it, but Jac actually wrote:
If you mean "day-age" interpretation, then yes. Are you thinking that calendar day creationism is the only "valid" interpretation, and that everything else is twisted readings? Are you not aware that the calendar day creation model is not even the oldest model, and that MOST Christians don't accept it?

Jac,

I've never agreed more with anything you've said regarding the creation debate.

Philip wrote:Hana, if the interactions betwixt Kurieuo and Jac are any indications, you might want to begin searching for additional server space - as MUCH more space will be obviously needed!

Seriously, though, I agree with Kurieuo, that to think that the Bible's original authors always understood double-functioning meanings at the time of their writings, just doesn't seem credible. How long have so many great theologicans been debating about end time prophecies (or ones considered so) and their meanings? Think John had a perfect handle on all of that when he penned "Revelation?" Not at all. And as God leaves future mysteries in prophecies meant for future revelation, I think it makes sense that He didn't reveal all in mysteries inherent in what He has told us about the distant past. There are just some mysteries that we will not totally understand in our flesh. And yet many act as if they have a perfect handle on things that they truly have no way of knowing for certain. As if God had wanted us to know certain things that He also knew would confuse Christiandom and cause lengthy and REASONABLE debate, I would think He would have provided far greater detail. So either there are certain things that He does not want us to COMPLETELY understand or that in what He communicated to the prophets had either other purposes, and possibly also, FUTURE understandings that would be revealed to us at a time of His choosing.

Wow, did someone other than Jac actually read what I wrote just then? I'm just amazed at that.

Kurieuo wrote:

Philip wrote:Hana, if the interactions betwixt Kurieuo and Jac are any indications, you might want to begin searching for additional server space - as MUCH more space will be obviously needed!

Seriously, though, I agree with Kurieuo, that to think that the Bible's original authors always understood double-functioning meanings at the time of their writings, just doesn't seem credible. How long have so many great theologicans been debating about end time prophecies (or ones considered so) and their meanings? Think John had a perfect handle on all of that when he penned "Revelation?" Not at all. And as God leaves future mysteries in prophecies meant for future revelation, I think it makes sense that He didn't reveal all in mysteries inherent in what He has told us about the distant past. There are just some mysteries that we will not totally understand in our flesh. And yet many act as if they have a perfect handle on things that they truly have no way of knowing for certain. As if God had wanted us to know certain things that He also knew would confuse Christiandom and cause lengthy and REASONABLE debate, I would think He would have provided far greater detail. So either there are certain things that He does not want us to COMPLETELY understand or that in what He communicated to the prophets had either other purposes, and possibly also, FUTURE understandings that would be revealed to us at a time of His choosing.

Wow, did someone other than Jac actually read what I wrote just then? I'm just amazed at that.

K,

FYI, I read it all too.

Then Rick, please moderate the two.

Wow, did someone other than Jac actually read what I wrote just then? I'm just amazed at that.

K, as a kid I was always enamored with the Cliff Notes version of "War and Peace." Note that the paperback version of Tolstoy's great work runs about 1,392 pages. The Cliff Notes version, only about 120 pages. Cliff's synopsis of the whole novel runs less than four pages.That Cliffy boy was a pure genius, he's how I got through high school!

Some here might want to take a few "notes" from Cliffy!

Quick reply with the quick reply button!

K, no worries on "turn[ing] up the head" . . . have you ever known me to be afraid of a good debate?!? Nah, and I think we both know and respect each other fairly well that we can take the points we raise for one another in the light and spirit they are intended. I can't speak for onlookers . . . all I can say for them, if they choose to torture themselves by reading our drivel (or, at least my very, very, very long winded drivel) is may the Lord have mercy upon them.

Anyway, as always you raise important points. I'll offer a response a little later. I won't do a line by line for the sake of length, so when I do, if I miss something, just point it out. And I also know that you aren't out to debate. I do think discussions like this are worth having so that not only you and I but those who do want to follow can clarify our own beliefs. But I also know your time is limited--all the more reason I'll attempt to be a bit more laconic.

FYI, I didn't forget about you, K. Just haven't had time to write a substance response to the substance of your own reply.

I feel like I've been jacattacked . . . buried under the shear weight of the volume of words! I'm drooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowning. (j/k)

Jac3510 wrote:FYI, I didn't forget about you, K. Just haven't had time to write a substance response to the substance of your own reply.

I feel like I've been jacattacked . . . buried under the shear weight of the volume of words! I'm drooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowning. (j/k)

I don't mind. Really, I don't.
I'm actually a little scared of the number of words I'll get back.
The longer you take, the more scared I become about how long your response will be.

Because, normally, when we write to each other, every new post has a multiplier effect when the other next responds.

*Kurieuo braces himself*

Alright, K . . . so I’m going to attempt to keep this book very short. I suppose I’ll have to title it Against Kurieuo . (j/k!) Seriously, though, in the interest of space, I’m not going to give a line by line response. Instead, I think I’ve identified seven distinct issues we are talking about, and I’m going to address them so far as I see them to be in terms of order of importance. As usual, if I miss anything you think to be of particular importance, please say as much, and, of course, you are free to respond (or not) as you so choose to whatever you so choose.

Book 1 – The nature of Scripture and its divine and human authorship

I think this is of primary importance, because it goes to the heart of how we read Scripture. As I read you, you argue that because Scripture is divinely inspired, we are therefore free to find in the words of Scripture fulfillments that the human author would have been totally unaware of. As such, it would appear to me that we are forced to distinguish between the human intent and the divine intent. For if God intended a meaning that the human author did not, then clearly the human and divine intentions are necessarily distinct. But that raises serious questions about the relationship between those to intentions. Which is inspired? If the divine intention is correct, can the human intention be incorrect? Or worse, it seems like such a view results in what Earl Radmacher calls “hermeneutical nihilism” for it “separate the words of the text from the author resulting in multiple meanings.” He goes on to ask

• Is it not possible that the claim of authorial ignorance [and, thus, divided intentions] makes the Bible something less than a truly human document. Just as we do not want to describe the person of Christ as less than truly human, so we do not want to describe the Scriptures as less than truly human.

(See Radmacher’s Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, pp.433, 36). Now, I think Radmacher is making an important point. The Bible is certainly a divine book, but the moment we separate the intentions, we have ceased to allow it to be a human book. For now the only role the authors have is that they are providing the material cause; that is, they are the ones who write the words on the page. But their intentions behind those words prove to be secondary at best. The real cause is only divine. And that, I think, is a rather dangerous thing to do, because now we may as well ignore authorial intent all the way around. If the human author’s intention doesn’t have to be followed, then the text may as well mean whatever we want it to mean. All we have to say is, “It doesn’t matter what Moses meant. What matters is what God meant, and God meant so and so, even if that’s not what Moses own words actually mean.”

And if that isn’t bad enough, I charge that this makes all of Scriptural revelation absolutely meaningless and therefore no revelation at all. For, again, if we are not forced to hold to authorial intent, and if we can import meanings of the text that are foreign to it (or merely even unwarranted by it) based on future “revelation,” then what is to say that we understand the text as it we have it now? After all, if Moses himself could not, in principle, understand what he had written (since his intention is of secondary importance to the divine intention, and since the divine intention is only revealed later), then it is necessary to conclude that the divine intention was unavailable to Moses himself. And if the intention was unavailable to Moses, then he could not know its meaning, and therefore, the meaning was not “revealed” to him. And therefore, Scripture was not “revelation” to Moses after all. But if that is true, then why is it not also true for us?

The easiest solution to this whole dilemma is to simply say what we have always said: we go by authorial intention. We do not allow fuller meanings to be found in the text by later authors. Regarding inspiration, we affirm what the Bible actually says: the men themselves were inspired, and therefore, their intentions are the inspired intentions. There is no distinction, then, between the human and divine intention, and therefore, no one can appeal to a supposed meaning that God “hid” in the text that was only discovered/revealed later on.

As to your concerns that the NT authors found exactly those kinds of hidden meanings, it just so happens I wrote a paper titled “The Hermeneutical Implications of the New Testament’s Use of Three Messianic Psalms” on that very issue. You can find it here.

Book 2 – The Meaning of Yom

Hermeneutical questions aside, the meaning of yom is central to any YEC/OEC debate. You rightly say that I need to provide evidence for my contention that yom actually never means “age.” I discuss that in some detail here. The long and short of it is that I did an exhaustive analysis on every single use of the word in the Pentateuch some time ago, and I found that it never means “age.” Moreover, every time that the word is use in connection with an undefined period of time, it is always used as a temporal marker (which is not the same thing as saying it’s semantic range includes “age” or “undefined period of time”) and it is always marked by certain linguistic flags (i.e., it is in the construct state, it is plural, it is the object of a preposition, etc.). The bottom line here is that every single time, without exception, that the word yom appears “naked” (without such markers), it always, in every case, refers to an ordinary day. Since yom is “naked” in Gen 1-2 as well, we ought to affirm it refers to ordinary days. To say that it does not is to go against all the linguistic evidence.

Book 3 – YEC as “The Default Position”

Central to my concerns regarding the eisogetical nature of the OEC interpretation of Genesis 1 is my claim that OEC is a recent invention, completely in response to modern science, and that because it is a reaction to modern science and an attempt to read the text through the lens of modern science. As such, I argue that YEC is and has been the traditional interpretation—the one that those free from such biases have always opted for. Against this, you argued that YEC has not been the default position, and that it only became a controversy in the twentieth century. To this, I have three points:

First, I find the objection disingenuous at best. After all, prior to the twentieth century, everyone either believed that the earth had always existed or they believed that it was created a relatively short time ago. Even Augustine, who OEC advocates like Ross love to quote and pretend that he was on their side, believed in a young earth. He certainly was not a YEC because he did not believe in six literal days of creation. He actually believed that creation happened instantaneously. But, again, he believed that the genealogies in Genesis gave the world a few thousand years at most. Moreover, his exegesis of Genesis 1 actually assumed that the days of Genesis 1 were ordinary days! He just took those ordinary days as allegories. So Augustine is actually in the “YEC” camp, and he is typical of the actual mentality before the 20th century. The point, in any case, is that it is silly to think that YEC would have been controversial before the 20th century. It was only then that science started saying the earth was older than the biblical record, taken in a straightforward, normal fashion, says that it is. In fact, if OEC was a natural, exegetical reading of the text, then you would have expected the controversy to be much older than the 20th century! But the very fact that it is not shows that the roots of the controversy is modern science, and that goes as evidence that OEC is eisogetically grounded and therefore is an invalid reading of the Genesis narrative.

Second, the claim is simply incorrect. A great many people in the early church interpreted the days of Genesis 1 to be ordinary days (which is, of course, the central YEC claim). I’ve already noted Augustine above. Basil of Caesarea provide another example, as do Ambrose and the reformers (e.g., Calvin and Luther). The global flood is another YEC belief universally attested to by the history of interpretation, the only exception I know of prior to the 20th century being Pseudo-Justin. In fact, the problem is so severe that John Milam of Reasons.org is forced to admit:

• Based on my own research, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view or an earth older than 10,000 years. In fact, the first people that I can clearly identify as teaching the old-earth view are Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet in the late seventeenth century.

He goes on to offer a five part article in attempt to explain away this fact. So he says, for instance, that we can’t really trust the CFs because they didn’t have the Hebrew OT, because they didn’t have a literal hermeneutic like OECs attempt to, etc. But such claims are obviously unhelpful, and in particular because . . .

Third, the argument against YEC being a new invention is entirely irrelevant, because the CFs, for the most part, did not hold to a literal hermeneutic. But that is just where we say that they went off track. And if we are going to insist that we follow their example, then OEC needs to be ruled out too, given its claim to literalness. But beyond that, the YEC claim still stands, because, as I mentioned above, there were YEC writers who took the text of Genesis literally and who believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old and that the days were ordinary days. And those that took the text allegorically presumed that reading of the text for theological purposes! And yet the fact remains, as Milam admits, OEC views are ENTIRELY ABSENT from the historical record. So what explains the “mutation” in interpretational history (to steal a playbook from Wright)? The best and indeed the only answer is modern science, which has nothing to do with the text. Therefore, OEC is clearly an eisogetical interpretation and ought to be rejected on those grounds alone.

--------------------------------------

Well, I have three more “books,” but this book is long enough! It seems I also need to address the issue of objectivity v. subjectivity in interpretation, my supposed use of outside sources (e.g., Rom. 5:12) in my interpretation of Gen. 1 as well as the interpretation of those verses in and of themselves, and lastly the distinction between suffering caused by our own sins and suffering caused by the general world as it stands (that is, whether or not the Fall affected the whole world or did it only affect mankind). But I only have so much time, and this is WAY long enough. So let me stop here and turn it back over to you. As I’m already coming up on 2000 words, and it’s probably too much to handle as it is . . .

I hope you don’t feel buried! If you want me to address something else, just let me know.

Hi Jac,

You've provided a well structured and thought out response, as usual.
I can appreciate many of the arguments that you provide and the coherency of them.

As you know it was not really my intention to enter into debate, not that I'm shy to but it's just something I'm much less passionate about now than perhaps 10 years ago. Nonetheless, I will respect that you've essentially thrown down the gauntlet to me. So how can I walk away?
Out of respect to you I'll respond back in reasonable time to parts one topic at a time.

Jac3510 wrote:Alright, K . . . so I’m going to attempt to keep this book very short. I suppose I’ll have to title it Against Kurieuo . (j/k!) Seriously, though, in the interest of space, I’m not going to give a line by line response. Instead, I think I’ve identified seven distinct issues we are talking about, and I’m going to address them so far as I see them to be in terms of order of importance. As usual, if I miss anything you think to be of particular importance, please say as much, and, of course, you are free to respond (or not) as you so choose to whatever you so choose.

To set the stage, I want to be clear that I only intend to defend my own unadulterated position.

Second point.
I'm no longer concerned if someone believes in Theistic Evolution at one extreme, or Young Earth Creation at the other extreme.
Sure I believe both are wrong, but I'm not so hung up on it as I was once if you read me posts here 10 years ago.

I'll call a Christian brother or sister anyone who believes in Christ and has received God's grace.
Further, I do not want burden anyone exploring Christianity to be at all concerned about this topic that we discuss here.
Christ is the essential. That's all that matters. Such that you can take a quite liberal view on creation and still be Christian.

So, on defending my own position.
That is really all I desired to do in my last post, but the nature of defense means that sometimes a little push back happens.
While I find the YEC position extremely lacking, it will not be my intention to take away YEC beliefs from anyone, if that were possible.
SO to be clear, my focus will be on defending and presenting a case for my position and not attacking YEC belief.

Next, on my position that I'll defend on creation.
I want to be crystal clear on this:

• I will not defend the Day-Age position (often associated with Hugh Ross' exegesis of Genesis) -- which makes an issue of days.
• I will not defend "Old Earth Creationism" (for this wrongly places emphasis on Earth's age as contrasted against YECs). There would perhaps be no OEC is there were no YECs.
• And while I don't mind the term, I'm also shutting the door on "Progressive Creation". Simply for the fact that it was ascribed by YECs to Day-Age/OEC.
  The term itself is misleading and could even represent YECs. For that matter I find it stupid to use. I'm sure there must be some sleight of hand attached to it also, perhaps intended to raise "red flags" in the minds of some believers. That wouldn't surprise me.

What then in my position?
Simply this pure unadulterated statement:
God performed specific fiat creative acts in the world that spanned relatively long periods of time.

You might wonder "what the"? That's just Day-Age, Old Earth Creation or Progressive Creation.
No, so many complexities, baggage and perceptions are attach to those terms.

My definition is different in tone.
It is just a raw and simple statement. Unadulterated I say.
Does Scripture allow for my position? I believe it does.

Finally, to conclude this opening response of mine let me say this.
Anyone who passionately argues against my position, I think is making a deal over nothing much at all.
Although I may have whacked the YEC beehive in my last message defending my position which you have rightly pushed back on...
I see that both can be seen as Scriptural interpretations, and that's good enough for me.

However, I do cringe at some statements YECs make.
And I merely cringe because I'm conscious to non-Christians and hate creating unnecessary stumbling blocks for them.
I'd encourage YECs to take a more open approach if ever discussing creation with non-Christians.
Something I think many would find hard to do, if not downright impossible.

This is why I again stress that this topic is a non-issue re: Christianity.
Do not judge Christianity based on different creation scenarios.
It's not Creatianity. Christianity is about Christ and our response to what he did and said.