Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Jac,

Obviously I don't have the ability that you have to study the text. There are people who know hebrew a lot better than I do, that also agree that an old earth fits the text.

It's funny to me as someone who is a layman. I'm not very versed in Hebrew. And I'm not a scientist. You know hebrew pretty well, and you believe in YEC. Some Christian scientists who know science well, believe in OEC.

Since I can't match wits in a discussion about hebrew, and I can't match wits with a scientist about science, I'm just left with the conclusion that it's really not worth the battle. I'm content with believing it's an issue that can be disagreed upon by believers.

And if God wants to show me something I'm missing, I'm open to that too.

And that's a position I can respect. I've said the same thing with reference to the science. What I think you can consider going forward is the point I've been making regarding the history of interpretation. Yes, there are a lot of scholars today who argue that the OT can be squared with OEC. But the fact remains that no one held to that view prior to the twentieth century. That's just a fact. You don't have to be a scholar of Hebrew or of science to see that.

So the question is, what caused the change? And what are we to say about all those people for 1900 years who did read Hebrew, that ALL of them held to what are now known as YEC beliefs? Why should we reject ALL of them? Doesn't it seem odd to you that scholars didn't start noticing these alternative understandings until they had a theological ax to grind?

I'm not asking you to comment on it in this thread. I'm just asking you to think about it in your own time. Nothing more.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:I'm probably going to bow out of this, because I know how our discussions have gone in the past. And honestly, I don't want to see that again.

I just think the text allows for an old earth interpretation, and I'll leave it at that.

Regardless of what the text is seen to allow for, the belief that there was ever a world wide flood cannot be supported by anything outside of the bible.

I do believe in a world wide flood and although I cannot prove it happened I can give scientific evidence that makes it very possible that it happened and it is not impossible like atheists think.There is more evidence for a world wide flood than there is for macro-evolution.

I can certainly prove it did not, starting with the polar ice thats been there over a hundred thousand years. Its got NOTHING to do with atheism. Educated Christians know better than to think there was such a flood.

As for the "macroevolution' thing, that is irrelevant, as well as untrue.

According to NOAA the average depth of the ocean is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet this is deeper than any mountain on land is tall including the Grand Canyon if we leveled out the surface of the earth under the oceans the whole earth would be flooded right now.Also there is more water inside the earth than on it.

Psalm 104:5-9 is proven true based on the evidence I have given and yet Psalm 104:5-9"Who laid the foundations of the earth,that it should not be removed?:Thou coveredst it with the deep as wih a garmet:the waters stood above the mountains.At thy rebuke they fled;at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.They go up by the mountains;they go down to the place which thou hast founded for them.Thou hast set a boundary that they may not pass over;that they turn not again to cover the earth."

This is King David writing this praise song to God and yet I just proved it scientifically true according to the depth of the ocean,the valleys and deep trenches that make it so deep,the sea shore and the fact that there is more water inside the earth than on it - a place God has founded for the water. Did King David living in the bronze age have technology like we do today to know the oceans are so deep,there are deep trenches on the sea floor and a place for the waters that once covered the earth that were up by the mountains.I guess he could tell by swimming in it?

I am sure you mean well, but no discussion is going to be possible.

Jac (on Miller's Book, "In the Beginning We Misunderstood"): "No, and I'm not interested in it. I read reviews of it when it came out. Correct me if I'm wrong (and if so, I'll put it on my list), but the main thesis of the book is that Moses was not interested in presenting a historically accurate account of creation. Instead, by heavy comparisons with and usage of Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythology, his goal was to present Yahweh Elohim as the One True God.

No, Miller is not saying that the Genesis accounts are not historical - he believes they ARE. But he's saying that they were not likely meant to address an accurate understanding of the SCIENCE to a pre-scientific age peoples - of which the writer(s) themselves likely had little understanding of. Yes, the original audience does indeed matter - which is much of Miller's point. These are pre-scientific age people who were just out of 400 years of absorbing pagan religious beliefs and their creation myths. Jac, seriously, you will only be arguing from ignorance if you do not get this book. There is just no way that the wordings could so closely parallel the myths of the Egyptians by mere happenstance - it must be on purpose. And you can't simply say with confidence that Mose's (and any other writers') purpose was precisely just one thing (concerning time references). Let's not forget that the actual passages referencing time issues are very brief.

Jac, you, as well, interpret the science via your YEC beliefs. In fact, you often express your own lack of scientific knowledge, yet then dismiss it as if that is irrelevant. You also seem to conveniently interpret things literally when they fit, and otherwise when they don't. And to suggest that OEC scientist interpret the scientific evidence the way they do merely because they have OEC views is not credible - and to say this makes me believe you are very lacking in knowledge concerning the evidence - else I believe you would be more charitable about those who have reasonably come to certain conclusions rather than other ones. To say that concluding that the universe and earth are ancient has only happened due to what one thinks the Bible teaches about the length of the Creation Days just isn't credible, as it is in no way nearly so simple. Qualified Christians are interpreting various evidences as pointing toward an ancient Creation largely independent of what they believe about Scripture - as repeat observations made for many other studies have used the very same methodology while also lending strong support to conclude great age. I would THINK God would want the evidences to appear in sync with whatever the truth of the matter is. Yet maybe not - but it is an interesting question. God well knows that most have sincerely used their best abilities and reason (and many, prayerfully as well) - which He gave them, by the way - to analyze and draw conclusions. But you seem to be asserting that OEC Christians are basically wasting their time, and that they just need to study theology and Hebrew in far greater detail and pay little attention to the scientific aspects. Again, the Creation that we can observe IS another testimony. So it's reasonable to wonder why God would not make our observations where they almost universally would draw an obvious conclusion about the matter - UNLESS - He doesn't want it to be obvious. But again, why hide what would be a powerful witness to the world?

It matters not a whit what earlier Christians from other eras thought about the age issue, as while much earlier, that doesn't mean they correctly understood it any more than numbers today mean it. Some books were first thought to be canonical - or not - and then beliefs about them changed. And to assert that the writers fully understood all aspects of the text that God inspired them to write just doesn't hold up. That's assuming far more than can be proven or with what we see concerning other Scriptural issues - particularly distant prophetic utterances.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:Jac,

Obviously I don't have the ability that you have to study the text. There are people who know hebrew a lot better than I do, that also agree that an old earth fits the text.

It's funny to me as someone who is a layman. I'm not very versed in Hebrew. And I'm not a scientist. You know hebrew pretty well, and you believe in YEC. Some Christian scientists who know science well, believe in OEC.

Since I can't match wits in a discussion about hebrew, and I can't match wits with a scientist about science, I'm just left with the conclusion that it's really not worth the battle. I'm content with believing it's an issue that can be disagreed upon by believers.

And if God wants to show me something I'm missing, I'm open to that too.

And that's a position I can respect. I've said the same thing with reference to the science. What I think you can consider going forward is the point I've been making regarding the history of interpretation. Yes, there are a lot of scholars today who argue that the OT can be squared with OEC. But the fact remains that no one held to that view prior to the twentieth century. That's just a fact. You don't have to be a scholar of Hebrew or of science to see that.

So the question is, what caused the change? And what are we to say about all those people for 1900 years who did read Hebrew, that ALL of them held to what are now known as YEC beliefs? Why should we reject ALL of them? Doesn't it seem odd to you that scholars didn't start noticing these alternative understandings until they had a theological ax to grind?

I'm not asking you to comment on it in this thread. I'm just asking you to think about it in your own time. Nothing more.

The only way you can interpret Genesis 1 to believe it teaches the heavens and earth are about 6000 years old is if you blend Genesis 1:1-3 all together and make verse 1 and 2 part of the first day which starts in verse 3.You will notice before every day God speaks and then the day ends with "and the evening and the morning were the first day,2nd day,on and on...to the 6th day" which I do believe represents 24 hour days. But Young earth creationists blending Genesis 1:1-2 into the first day is where their interpretation is messed up and I have actually read articles from young earth creationists where they do this like "Sunlight before the sun" by John D Morris http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3620/306/.

The fact is that verse 1 and 2 are before the first day and the truth is we can only speculate how much time was between Genesis1:1 and 2 and the first day in verse 3. And since science has all kinds of evidence that proves the heavens and earth are old why deny it and stick to a rigid doctrine and ignore it when you are having to blend verse 1,2 and 3 together to believe the earth is 6000 years old? It is not biblical to believe God created the heavens and the earth in a flawed state and then decorated it like YEC believe, read Job 38:1-7.It makes God look weak because when God first created the heavens and the earth they were perfect,but something happened to change that as we can see before the first day in verse 3.

Also even if it is true that an old earth view did not come until the 20th century when geologists were discovering the earth was old God's word is a revelation and is revealed over time but I have seen evidence to the contrary as ancient jewish scholars some 2000 years ago in their dispute with Gnostics claimed that the only thing God created on the first day was light and this is reflected in the Sarajevo Haggadah murials.

Jac3510 wrote:And that's a position I can respect. I've said the same thing with reference to the science. What I think you can consider going forward is the point I've been making regarding the history of interpretation. Yes, there are a lot of scholars today who argue that the OT can be squared with OEC. But the fact remains that no one held to that view prior to the twentieth century. That's just a fact. You don't have to be a scholar of Hebrew or of science to see that.

So the question is, what caused the change? And what are we to say about all those people for 1900 years who did read Hebrew, that ALL of them held to what are now known as YEC beliefs? Why should we reject ALL of them? Doesn't it seem odd to you that scholars didn't start noticing these alternative understandings until they had a theological ax to grind?

I'm not asking you to comment on it in this thread. I'm just asking you to think about it in your own time. Nothing more.

But Jac, if we don't allow for the possibility of an erroneously held historical position vis-a-vis the age of the earth, surely then we ought not allow the same possibility vis-a-vis authority. There is, after all, 1,600 years of historical Catholicism before the big protest.

Genesis does NOT teach that ANY age of the Earth.
The only genealogy in Genesis has to do with the age of a certain group of people ( Hebrews) from the time Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden in Eden.

Jac wrote:
And that's a position I can respect. I've said the same thing with reference to the science. What I think you can consider going forward is the point I've been making regarding the history of interpretation. Yes, there are a lot of scholars today who argue that the OT can be squared with OEC. But the fact remains that no one held to that view prior to the twentieth century. That's just a fact. You don't have to be a scholar of Hebrew or of science to see that.

So the question is, what caused the change? And what are we to say about all those people for 1900 years who did read Hebrew, that ALL of them held to what are now known as YEC beliefs? Why should we reject ALL of them? Doesn't it seem odd to you that scholars didn't start noticing these alternative understandings until they had a theological ax to grind?

I'm not asking you to comment on it in this thread. I'm just asking you to think about it in your own time. Nothing more.

Jac,

I haven't really studied the history of the church in regards to who believed OEC or YEC, like you've studied. I know you're very thorough in your studies, and you know your history. That's why I'm a little confused. Maybe you can clear something up for me. You are saying now, that no one held to an OEC view prior to the 20th century. Yet in this thread from a while back, you said:

Of course, the C.D. model is not the only model. It is not the popular model among scholars. Further, we can argue pretty well that it isn't the most theologically sound article. If you study where it came from, you'll find some interesting history there. So, your entire argument is moot . . . it's a straw man. So, my beliefs on the matter . . . well . . . they don't matter. Nor do yours. Here's the question:

Does the evidence presented by modern science agree or disagree with the biblical model?

Answer: it agrees with the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1-2, a position that has been argued and held for thousands of years.

What you're saying now, seems to directly contradict what you said back then.
You said that the biblical model "agrees with the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1-2, a position that has been argued and held for thousands of years."

And as I said, you are very thorough in your research. What were you referring to then, since now you explicitly deny what you asserted then? Do you remember which theologians you used to base that assertion on?

Hopefully you can clear up my confusion before we move forward.

Thanks

Hi Jac, thanks for your thoughtful comments throughout this thread. A couple points/questions.

Jac3510 wrote: But more importantly, I challenge your premise. I don't think that people are "sincerely trying to correctly interpret the data." I think that they are interpreting it within their accepted framework, and when you challenge that framework, they oppose it, not out of sincerity, but out of desire to hold on to their framework.

I can't say this is a reasonable challenge. What motivation do Christians have for misintrepreting the data to "hold on to their framework"? YEC would be convenient for many Christians. They'd be happy to make the shift. I was a Gap Theorist from the age of 12, because that's the only framework that I could see matched the Bible and what I could see in nature. Much like what Phillip is saying, I thought, at the age of 12, God hasn't deceived me; there are stars billions of light years away, we can measure the speed of light, so how did the light get here so quickly? My parents answered that it was possible "God just made it happen". But that didn't sit well. As I matured, I learned of interpreting the days to mean long periods of time and I've slowly latched onto this framework. But believe me, if the data was interpreted by me to fit YEC, I'd happily change that position. So I personally reject the idea I interpret the scientific data to conform to my framework.

Your charge sounds more directed to atheists. But then, what motivation do they have for interpresting the big bang the way they have done. A steady state universe fit their framework much more nicely. Your challenge simply does not match what we could expect from the secular scientific community.

So then we are back to Phillip's premis, that people are "sincerely trying to correctly interpret the data". You may argue they have misinterpreted the data, but that's an uphill battle for you certainly.

Jac3510 wrote:
1. The water overpowered
2. That it did so not just greatly, but exceedingly greatly
3. That in overpowering, it covered the earth/land
4. That this land included the mountains
5. That these mountains were not just mountains, but HIGH mountains
6. That we are talking about ALL the mountains
7. That we are talking about all the mountains under the heaven
8. And not just any heaven/sky, but the WHOLE sky

Now this is interesting for me. I didn't realize YECs felt the flood was an even greater misinterpretation by OECs. And thank you for translating the text, as I'd be lost. So I won't question your translation, but allow me to explain what I'm getting out of it.

I believe the flood was likely a glacial lake outburst flood, possibly cause by the majority of the north american continent being a giant lake with ice shores. During the warming in the past 100,000 years the shores melted and the lake waters burst forth raising sea levels rapidly and then subsiding over a period of about 6 months and slowly there after. I could be wrong, this is how I've interpreted my geology background, Bible reading, and other influences. If this were how the flood event occured, I view your points on the passage this way.

1 - 4. Yes, we would expect an extremely powerful and rush of water that no man could out run. It would flood the land above any mountain in sight. It's clear to me these first four points are totally consistent with this type of flood.

5. High mountains is difficult to understand. There's no quantative measurement here. Does the text say perhaps, the highest mountains? Or just high mountains? If this were a local flood, they would be the high visible mountains, no?

6 - 8. This kind of flood would impact the entire globe and all the mountains on the globe. But it would not have covered the highest mountains completely, not even close. Everest would have stood well above these flood waters. Assuming God wanted to destroy the wicked people, this would have done the job perfectly. Despite this, based on your interpretation, I can see how "heavens" or the "whole sky" means local. Which I suppose would be local since Everest and other medium and large sized mountains would still be uncovered.

So that raises some questions for me. Does the text suggest even the highest mountains outside the land of living were COVERED with water? If it doesn't suggest that, do points 6 to 8 allow for the whole globe to be impacted, yet high altitude regions to be unaffected?

Thanks.

Philip wrote:No, Miller is not saying that the Genesis accounts are not historical - he believes they ARE. But he's saying that they were not likely meant to address an accurate understanding of the SCIENCE to a pre-scientific age peoples - of which the writer(s) themselves likely had little understanding of. Yes, the original audience does indeed matter - which is much of Miller's point. These are pre-scientific age people who were just out of 400 years of absorbing pagan religious beliefs and their creation myths. Jac, seriously, you will only be arguing from ignorance if you do not get this book. There is just no way that the wordings could so closely parallel the myths of the Egyptians by mere happenstance - it must be on purpose. And you can't simply say with confidence that Mose's (and any other writers') purpose was precisely just one thing (concerning time references). Let's not forget that the actual passages referencing time issues are very brief.

First, I strongly object to the claim that I am "only arguing from ignorance if I do not get this book." What percentage of scholars have read Miller? Do they all argue from ignorance having not read this particular book? Of course not. Second, you assume that I have not read the Egyptian a Babylonian myths themselves. As a matter of fact, I have. Moreover, I have read other books that have made the point that Moses is intentionally borrowing from the those forms is composition of Genesis 1. As such, the ideas you are presenting are hardly novel to me. What I object to are the conclusions you are drawing from them.

Second, I do NOT say the commonalities are "by mere happenstance." On the contrary, I have said it was intentional. What I object to is the suggestion that Moses' use of certain forms means that the words mean something other than what they normally do. There is zero evidence for that claim. Now, if you want to cite specific arguments from Miller's work and we can talk about that, then fine. But otherwise, far from me arguing from ignorance, you are actually just appealing to authority. I'm open to discussing whatever ideas you like, but with all do respect, it isn't my job to do your work for you. If you have an idea that you think is important, then share it and then offer your conclusions and how you get them.

Jac, you, as well, interpret the science via your YEC beliefs. In fact, you often express your own lack of scientific knowledge, yet then dismiss it as if that is irrelevant. You also seem to conveniently interpret things literally when they fit, and otherwise when they don't. And to suggest that OEC scientist interpret the scientific evidence the way they do merely because they have OEC views is not credible - and to say this makes me believe you are very lacking in knowledge concerning the evidence - else I believe you would be more charitable about those who have reasonably come to certain conclusions rather than other ones. To say that concluding that the universe and earth are ancient has only happened due to what one thinks the Bible teaches about the length of the Creation Days just isn't credible, as it is in no way nearly so simple. Qualified Christians are interpreting various evidences as pointing toward an ancient Creation largely independent of what they believe about Scripture - as repeat observations made for many other studies have used the very same methodology while also lending strong support to conclude great age. I would THINK God would want the evidences to appear in sync with whatever the truth of the matter is. Yet maybe not - but it is an interesting question. God well knows that most have sincerely used their best abilities and reason (and many, prayerfully as well) - which He gave them, by the way - to analyze and draw conclusions. But you seem to be asserting that OEC Christians are basically wasting their time, and that they just need to study theology and Hebrew in far greater detail and pay little attention to the scientific aspects. Again, the Creation that we can observe IS another testimony. So it's reasonable to wonder why God would not make our observations where they almost universally would draw an obvious conclusion about the matter - UNLESS - He doesn't want it to be obvious. But again, why hide what would be a powerful witness to the world?

I never said that anyone is "concluding that the universe and earth are ancient has only happened due to what one thinks the Bible teaches about the length of the Creation Days." I don't even know how you got that out of my words. You have it exactly backwards. I Say that people are concluding that the Bible teaches an ancient earth because what they think science says.

As for me interpreting science through YEC, I certainly don't, and that for the simple reason that I don't interpret science at all. I'm not qualified to speak on the subject, and so I don't. However, those who are qualified to speak on the subject are perfectly justified in interpreting the scientific evidence through the YEC lens. The claim "you cannot interpret Scripture by science" is fundamentally different from "you cannot interpret science by Scripture." The former is a hermeneutical issue that has to do with how we interpret written texts. The latter is an epistemological issue that has to do with the assumptions we choose to make in reconstructing a probable history to explain the data as we have it. And this goes to the distinction between observational and forensic science. The age of the earth is a matter of the latter, not the former. And given the latter, our epistemological frameworks are extremely important. Not only are the valid, they are necessary. But the same is not true when looking at Scripture. For not only is such external data not necessary, it is invalid to apply it, because the nature of the discipline.

It matters not a whit what earlier Christians from other eras thought about the age issue, as while much earlier, that doesn't mean they correctly understood it any more than numbers today mean it. Some books were first thought to be canonical - or not - and then beliefs about them changed. And to assert that the writers fully understood all aspects of the text that God inspired them to write just doesn't hold up. That's assuming far more than can be proven or with what we see concerning other Scriptural issues - particularly distant prophetic utterances.

It matters a great deal. You seem to have misunderstood my argument. I am NOT saying this:

1. The CFs were YECs
2. The CFs were correct
3. Therefore, YEC is correct

What I AM saying is this:

1. If OEC were a legitimate natural, normal, or literal reading of the text, then we should see evidence of it being held by someone in church history
2. We do not see evidence of an OEC reading of Genesis in church history
3. Therefore, OEC is likely not a natural, normal, or literal reading of the text
4. But OEC is held today by many scholars regardless of it's unnatural reading
5. Unnatural readings require an explanation for their origin from outside the text, and those origins ought to be closely related to their central premise
6. Thus OEC requires an explanation for its origin from outside the text, and that origin ought to be closely related to its central premise

And, of course, I argue that the 20th century scientific consensus of the age of the universe is a fitting event to serve as the origin of the the development of OEC theology. And on this, I refer you back to N.T. Wright's historical method of proving the resurrection of Christ.

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

Byblos wrote:But Jac, if we don't allow for the possibility of an erroneously held historical position vis-a-vis the age of the earth, surely then we ought not allow the same possibility vis-a-vis authority. There is, after all, 1,600 years of historical Catholicism before the big protest.

I challenge the premise. I do not believe the authority of the magisterium is an uncontested notion in church history. In fact, just the opposite. I think a proper study of chruch history shows that it was a VERY contentious issue, and further, we can trace it's theological developments through external political pressures in almost precisely the same way we can with the development of the OEC model. Beyond the strictly philosophical arguments I have given, then, against the authority of the magisterium, and besides the Scriptural arguments I've offered against it, I believe historical theology actually argues against it as well. Sorry!

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

abelcainsbrother wrote:The only way you can interpret Genesis 1 to believe it teaches the heavens and earth are about 6000 years old is if you blend <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%201.1-3" data-reference="Genesis 1.1-3" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Genesis 1:1-3</a> all together and make verse 1 and 2 part of the first day which starts in verse 3.You will notice before every day God speaks and then the day ends with "and the evening and the morning were the first day,2nd day,on and on...to the 6th day" which I do believe represents 24 hour days. But Young earth creationists blending <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%201.1-2" data-reference="Genesis 1.1-2" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Genesis 1:1-2</a> into the first day is where their interpretation is messed up and I have actually read articles from young earth creationists where they do this like "Sunlight before the sun" by John D Morris http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3620/306/.

The fact is that verse 1 and 2 are before the first day and the truth is we can only speculate how much time was between <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis1.1" data-reference="Genesis1.1" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Genesis1:1</a> and <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%201.2" data-reference="Genesis 1.2" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">2</a> and the first day in verse 3. And since science has all kinds of evidence that proves the heavens and earth are old why deny it and stick to a rigid doctrine and ignore it when you are having to blend verse 1,2 and 3 together to believe the earth is 6000 years old? It is not biblical to believe God created the heavens and the earth in a flawed state and then decorated it like YEC believe, read <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Job%2038.1-7" data-reference="Job 38.1-7" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Job 38:1-7</a>.It makes God look weak because when God first created the heavens and the earth they were perfect,but something happened to change that as we can see before the first day in verse 3.

Also even if it is true that an old earth view did not come until the 20th century when geologists were discovering the earth was old God's word is a revelation and is revealed over time but I have seen evidence to the contrary as ancient jewish scholars some 2000 years ago in their dispute with Gnostics claimed that the only thing God created on the first day was light and this is reflected in the Sarajevo Haggadah murials.

I've not made any claims in this thread about the age of the earth, and I've certainly not said that it is 6000 years old. I am talking about the interpretation of yom. Beyond that, I see no warrant for positing anything like a gap between Gen 1:2 and 3. And beyond THAT, with all due respect to you, it just isn't a position I find interesting enough to argue about. Please don't take any offense at that. I'm just not going to debate the gap theory any more than I am the framework hypothesis. It just doesn't reach the threshold of basic credibility for me.

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

RickD wrote:I haven't really studied the history of the church in regards to who believed OEC or YEC, like you've studied. I know you're very thorough in your studies, and you know your history. That's why I'm a little confused. Maybe you can clear something up for me. You are saying now, that no one held to an OEC view prior to the 20th century. Yet in this thread from a while back, you said:

Of course, the C.D. model is not the only model. It is not the popular model among scholars. Further, we can argue pretty well that it isn't the most theologically sound article. If you study where it came from, you'll find some interesting history there. So, your entire argument is moot . . . it's a straw man. So, my beliefs on the matter . . . well . . . they don't matter. Nor do yours. Here's the question:

Does the evidence presented by modern science agree or disagree with the biblical model?

Answer: it agrees with the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1-2, a position that has been argued and held for thousands of years.

What you're saying now, seems to directly contradict what you said back then.
You said that the biblical model "agrees with the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1-2, a position that has been argued and held for thousands of years."

And as I said, you are very thorough in your research. What were you referring to then, since now you explicitly deny what you asserted then? Do you remember which theologians you used to base that assertion on?

Hopefully you can clear up my confusion before we move forward.

Thanks

Sure. Back when I said that, I had simply not looked at the historical evidence. I was taking Ross at his word (I had read within the past couple of years a few books he had written on the subject). When I went back and starting checking behind him, I was shocked to discover that he was very mistaken.

In short, yes, my statements then are completely contradicted by what I am saying now. And that is because I was wrong back then. Completely and totally wrong. Someone would have done well to ask me to quote a church father or early Jewish interpreter who held to OEC. I wouldn't have found anything (to my great dismay!).

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

ryanbouma wrote:I can't say this is a reasonable challenge. What motivation do Christians have for misintrepreting the data to "hold on to their framework"? YEC would be convenient for many Christians. They'd be happy to make the shift. I was a Gap Theorist from the age of 12, because that's the only framework that I could see matched the Bible and what I could see in nature. Much like what Phillip is saying, I thought, at the age of 12, God hasn't deceived me; there are stars billions of light years away, we can measure the speed of light, so how did the light get here so quickly? My parents answered that it was possible "God just made it happen". But that didn't sit well. As I matured, I learned of interpreting the days to mean long periods of time and I've slowly latched onto this framework. But believe me, if the data was interpreted by me to fit YEC, I'd happily change that position. So I personally reject the idea I interpret the scientific data to conform to my framework.

Your charge sounds more directed to atheists. But then, what motivation do they have for interpresting the big bang the way they have done. A steady state universe fit their framework much more nicely. Your challenge simply does not match what we could expect from the secular scientific community.

So then we are back to Phillip's premis, that people are "sincerely trying to correctly interpret the data". You may argue they have misinterpreted the data, but that's an uphill battle for you certainly.

I think you have me exactly backwards. When I talk about a "framework," I am NOT talking about a theological framework, but rather that SCIENTIFIC framework. So what motivation do Christians have to misinterpret the data? A GREAT motivation. In fact, the SAME motivation you admit in your comments here: "that's the only framework that I could see matched the Bible." It's very convenient, isn't it? OEC seems to match the scientific evidence, so it is easier to hold than YEC. You don't have to answer pesky questions about God "deceiving" you.

I believe the flood was likely a glacial lake outburst flood, possibly cause by the majority of the north american continent being a giant lake with ice shores. During the warming in the past 100,000 years the shores melted and the lake waters burst forth raising sea levels rapidly and then subsiding over a period of about 6 months and slowly there after. I could be wrong, this is how I've interpreted my geology background, Bible reading, and other influences. If this were how the flood event occured, I view your points on the passage this way.

But the Bible doesn't speak about "glacial lake outburst." It says that it rained for forty days and nights and that the springs from the deep opened. So I appreciate your attempt at a naturalistic explanation (much as I appreciate the attempts of people to naturalistically explain the Ten Plagues), but you aren't starting with what the text actually says caused the flood. In any case . . .

1 - 4. Yes, we would expect an extremely powerful and rush of water that no man could out run. It would flood the land above any mountain in sight. It's clear to me these first four points are totally consistent with this type of flood.

5. High mountains is difficult to understand. There's no quantative measurement here. Does the text say perhaps, the highest mountains? Or just high mountains? If this were a local flood, they would be the high visible mountains, no?

6 - 8. This kind of flood would impact the entire globe and all the mountains on the globe. But it would not have covered the highest mountains completely, not even close. Everest would have stood well above these flood waters. Assuming God wanted to destroy the wicked people, this would have done the job perfectly. Despite this, based on your interpretation, I can see how "heavens" or the "whole sky" means local. Which I suppose would be local since Everest and other medium and large sized mountains would still be uncovered.

And I don't see how the "whole sky" can be local. If it were local, then we aren't talking about "the whole sky." As as far as how high the mountains are, the grammar doesn't help. It is, though, a bit silly, in my view, to suggest that when the ark came to rest on the mountains of ararat that we are talking about some low foothills. Were that the case, the higher mountains would have been well within view, which contradicts the text. No, it's best to take Moses' meaning as being an emphasis of the universal nature of the flood. ALL the mountains under the WHOLE sky were covered deeply (by fifteen cubits!) by very powerful waters.

So that raises some questions for me. Does the text suggest even the highest mountains outside the land of living were COVERED with water? If it doesn't suggest that, do points 6 to 8 allow for the whole globe to be impacted, yet high altitude regions to be unaffected?

Thanks.

Yes, ALL mountains were COVERED with water. No, the high altitude regions were not unaffected. They were covered with water. To suggest otherwise is to deny the claim that ALL the mountains under ALL the sky were covered, and further that the mechanism of producing the water was forty days and nights of rain plus the springs of the deep bursting open.

Hope that helps!

I'm going to throw my 2 cents in. I have always understood the flood to be a global flood, I took scripture on absolute face value. I think there is real validity to the claim that when you start interpreting scripture as not literal then where do you draw the line? But there are some very thought provoking things to consider on looking closer. Language and literature is kinda up my alley and I think terms like 'the whole sky' can and could be used in a more figurative sense. I actually said to my husband just last night " did you see that lightning, it lit up the whole sky" that was from my perspective from out of my window it certainly in no way meant it lit up the 'whole' sky on a global scale, that is just silly. Dictionaries tell us that figurative language is language used in a non-literal way in order to add emphasis. This is not only seen in English or in modern language.
Mount Ararat is 5137 metres above sea level. The highest mountain in Turkey, not a low lying foothill but certainly not near the highest mountain on a global scale. Mt Everest is 8,848 metres and there are over 100 mountains with heights over 7200 metres around the world. So from a local perspective apart from Mt Ararat all the mountains would have been covered over.
Noah lived somewhere east of Eden, the Tigris and Euphrates run through Eden which are found in Turkey. The ark floated around on the water in a very localised area, with the ark resting on Mt Ararat.
I think from that perspective it is a possibility that the 'whole sky' and "all the mountains being covered over" could be from a localised viewpoint.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:I haven't really studied the history of the church in regards to who believed OEC or YEC, like you've studied. I know you're very thorough in your studies, and you know your history. That's why I'm a little confused. Maybe you can clear something up for me. You are saying now, that no one held to an OEC view prior to the 20th century. Yet in this thread from a while back, you said:

Of course, the C.D. model is not the only model. It is not the popular model among scholars. Further, we can argue pretty well that it isn't the most theologically sound article. If you study where it came from, you'll find some interesting history there. So, your entire argument is moot . . . it's a straw man. So, my beliefs on the matter . . . well . . . they don't matter. Nor do yours. Here's the question:

Does the evidence presented by modern science agree or disagree with the biblical model?

Answer: it agrees with the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1-2, a position that has been argued and held for thousands of years.

What you're saying now, seems to directly contradict what you said back then.
You said that the biblical model "agrees with the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1-2, a position that has been argued and held for thousands of years."

And as I said, you are very thorough in your research. What were you referring to then, since now you explicitly deny what you asserted then? Do you remember which theologians you used to base that assertion on?

Hopefully you can clear up my confusion before we move forward.

Thanks

Sure. Back when I said that, I had simply not looked at the historical evidence. I was taking Ross at his word (I had read within the past couple of years a few books he had written on the subject). When I went back and starting checking behind him, I was shocked to discover that he was very mistaken.

In short, yes, my statements then are completely contradicted by what I am saying now. And that is because I was wrong back then. Completely and totally wrong. Someone would have done well to ask me to quote a church father or early Jewish interpreter who held to OEC. I wouldn't have found anything (to my great dismay!).

Jac, I think you're being a bit misleading here.

I did not come to defend Ross, but rather what I feel is a misrepresentation.
You mention taking Ross at his "word", but what "word" was that and where did Ross say it?

If you truly finally investigated the supporting quotes Ross uses, and found them very mistakenly used, then how about providing some of them here so others can judge for themselves?

You know I've read Ross too, and he presents references so people to decide for themselves.
He doesn't tell people what to believe. Just what he believes and why.
And people can decide for themselves from there. Just like I decided for myself.
And its a choice I don't see many prominent YEC's so graciously give to Christians (e.g., quote in RickD's signature a case in point).

So others here can make up there own minds what to think, I'll present some of Ross' references.
We have some of the following writings on the Genesis creation days from various early "Christian Fathers" (aka theologians):

• Irenaeus said: Thus, then, in the day they eat, in the same did they die... For it is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. ... On one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of creation)... He (Adam) did no overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit... for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them."
  
  Augustine wrote in the 'The City of God': "As for these 'days,' [Genesis creation days] it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think let alone explain in words what they mean."
  
  In 'The Literal Meaning of Genesis' Augustine writes: "But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar."
  
  Elsewhere in the same book he writes: Seven days by our reckoning after the model of the day of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its settings; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them.
  
  Origen also wrote of the first six days as representing the time of work for men, and the seventh (Sabbath) day, lasting the full duration of the world: He [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties will ascend to the contemplation (of Celestial things) and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings.

Belief that the days of Genesis 1 may not have been ordinary days existed long before modern science emerged.
And these ideas from CFs who took many of the now canonical books just as seriously as we do, even if they didn't have a statement like the Chicago Statement which endorses a Historical-Grammatical method when reading Scripture.

What does this mean?
Well it means there was really no "literal" interpretation whether OEC or YEC by today's same standards.
It is therefore unreasonable to expect to find ANY "literal" Historical-Grammatical interpretation from someone who believed Scripture was inerrant and divinely inspired by modern Evangelical standards.
Therefore, to use this in an argument against an opposition is to setup an unreasonable burden of proof.

I think you would find even Hugh Ross agreeing that a literal OEC interpretation like Day-Age/Progressive Creation ONLY came about in the 20th century.
BUT, this does mean earlier ideas do not lend support to such interpretations. For example, those words from CFs that I quoted above.
I'll allow others here to make up their own minds about instead of dictating what they do/do not support.

SO, to argue that no CFs thought anything that lends support of a non-ordinary day interpretation of Scripture is easy to disprove and disingenuous.
And to make out that there is absolutely nothing from CFs to support yom (day) in Genesis as a non-ordinary day is very misleading, especially if you have looked into the references behind it all.

So I find your statement: "Someone would have done well to ask me to quote a church father or early Jewish interpreter who held to OEC" quite misleading.
And it is because of this, I've written this post as well as presented some references above that Hugh Ross himself uses.
People reading here can decide for themselves whether such supports an OEC, Day-Age or Progressive Creation position.

Finally, I'd argue that early non-modern scientific understandings may have lead interpreters of old even astray.
You say any OEC interpretation may be coloured by a modern scientific understanding, but equally any interpretation of old may have been coloured by a non-modern scientific understanding. Where does that leave us?
To provide an example, that the Earth was the centre of the universe was a scientific thought.
This influenced interpretation of Scripture.
And the RCC burnt themselves on Copernicus, who mind you was also just a Christian and scientist like Ross.

Furthermore, we learn from examples like Copernicus that just because certain beliefs may find a home in a Traditional understanding such does not mean that the Traditional understanding is correct and true.
Just picture what Luther went through to resurface the true Gospel containing God's grace.

AND SO, to stress again here like I did elsewhere....
None of these arguments external to Scripture prove what is the truth of the matter and as such correct interpretation.
Interpretations must be judged on their own merits, particularly if we want to know what Scripture itself says (rather than others' interpretations of it).

As an aside to anyone reading, Jac and I have been around long enough on these issues.
There is no angst between Jac or myself here. And I strongly disagree that there is strength in Christians agreeing on every point.
I think to do so introduces a weakness into the true Church (aka all in Christ) and that the Holy Spirit has instrumentally used the many denominations.
As long as we still tolerate each other's positions, then we can stand in Christ united in our disagreement.

Hi again Jac. Thanks for the reply.

Jac3510 wrote:
I think you have me exactly backwards. When I talk about a "framework," I am NOT talking about a theological framework, but rather that SCIENTIFIC framework. So what motivation do Christians have to misinterpret the data? A GREAT motivation. In fact, the SAME motivation you admit in your comments here: "that's the only framework that I could see matched the Bible." It's very convenient, isn't it? OEC seems to match the scientific evidence, so it is easier to hold than YEC. You don't have to answer pesky questions about God "deceiving" you.

Hmm, maybe we are misunderstanding each other. I thought you were saying people interpret the world around us to fit some kind of OEC view. So what you're saying is we are interpreting the Bible in light of our view of the world. Sure we are. I don't think we're denying that. We see that the world is billions of years old, we believe in the truth of the scripture, so we try to reconcile the two. Otherwise, as Phillip raised, we wonder if God is deceptive. But we know he is not. Soooo, then what? It's hard to just look at the physical reality around us and say "well screw it, we must be delusional cause I read every word of the Bible to be a literal description of creation". Help me out here, are you expecting that?

Jac3510 wrote:
But the Bible doesn't speak about "glacial lake outburst." It says that it rained for forty days and nights and that the springs from the deep opened. So I appreciate your attempt at a naturalistic explanation (much as I appreciate the attempts of people to naturalistically explain the Ten Plagues), but you aren't starting with what the text actually says caused the flood. In any case . . .

Well to say the Bible doesn't speak of a glacial lake outburst flood is a little bit absurd don't you think? That's a scientific label we've applied to it. I don't think you've appreciated that my description was extremely simple. I didn't claim it was sunny out. Opposite of what you may expect, warm rain would encourage the outburst. 40 days of rain would also saturate the ground encouraging flooding. And springs would have pushed up out of the ground.

To be clear, my intention is not to put a naturalistic explanation on it. I have no problem with God doing miracles. I think the big bang is the most amazing miracle aside from Jesus' resurrection. I'm not trying to make things fit into a naturalistic explanation. We just don't see the evidence of that kind of miracle, the way do the big bang, the beginning of life, the resurrection, etc.

Jac3510 wrote:

Yes, ALL mountains were COVERED with water. No, the high altitude regions were not unaffected. They were covered with water. To suggest otherwise is to deny the claim that ALL the mountains under ALL the sky were covered, and further that the mechanism of producing the water was forty days and nights of rain plus the springs of the deep bursting open.

Hope that helps!

You haven't explained how the text even suggests this let alone literally says it. It seems to me this could easily be "all the mountains" and "all the sky" from the victims perspective. The type of flood I feel this would have been would have affected all the world. A glacial outburst flood would actually be more powerfull than 40 days of rain and springs coming forth, so my explanation does fit your points 1-4 better.

Are you taking this a little to literally? Should we be this literal with all of the Bible?

abelcainsbrother wrote:
The only way you can interpret Genesis 1 to believe it teaches the heavens and earth are about 6000 years old is if you blend <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%201.1-3" data-reference="Genesis 1.1-3" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Genesis 1:1-3</a> all together and make verse 1 and 2 part of the first day which starts in verse 3.You will notice before every day God speaks and then the day ends with "and the evening and the morning were the first day,2nd day,on and on...to the 6th day" which I do believe represents 24 hour days. But Young earth creationists blending <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%201.1-2" data-reference="Genesis 1.1-2" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Genesis 1:1-2</a> into the first day is where their interpretation is messed up and I have actually read articles from young earth creationists where they do this like "Sunlight before the sun" by John D Morris http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3620/306/.

The fact is that verse 1 and 2 are before the first day and the truth is we can only speculate how much time was between <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis1.1" data-reference="Genesis1.1" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Genesis1:1</a> and <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%201.2" data-reference="Genesis 1.2" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">2</a> and the first day in verse 3. And since science has all kinds of evidence that proves the heavens and earth are old why deny it and stick to a rigid doctrine and ignore it when you are having to blend verse 1,2 and 3 together to believe the earth is 6000 years old? It is not biblical to believe God created the heavens and the earth in a flawed state and then decorated it like YEC believe, read <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Job%2038.1-7" data-reference="Job 38.1-7" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Job 38:1-7</a>.It makes God look weak because when God first created the heavens and the earth they were perfect,but something happened to change that as we can see before the first day in verse 3.

Also even if it is true that an old earth view did not come until the 20th century when geologists were discovering the earth was old God's word is a revelation and is revealed over time but I have seen evidence to the contrary as ancient jewish scholars some 2000 years ago in their dispute with Gnostics claimed that the only thing God created on the first day was light and this is reflected in the Sarajevo Haggadah murials.

Jac3510 wrote:
I've not made any claims in this thread about the age of the earth, and I've certainly not said that it is 6000 years old. I am talking about the interpretation of yom. Beyond that, I see no warrant for positing anything like a gap between Gen 1:2 and 3. And beyond THAT, with all due respect to you, it just isn't a position I find interesting enough to argue about. Please don't take any offense at that. I'm just not going to debate the gap theory any more than I am the framework hypothesis. It just doesn't reach the threshold of basic credibility for me.

You are arguing for a young earth and so it implies a 6-10,000 year old heavens and earth.OK you don't want argue about a Gap which you find not interesting that's fine but I have took the time to look at all of the creation theories and thoroughly research all of them as I used to be a YEC so I already know what they believe and teach and The Gap theory is most truthful creation theory I have researched and it kinda bothers me that it is the least known about but the most biblically true creation theory out there and yet people ignore it when it would be so much more effective against evolution than any of the other creation theories with YEC in dead last.Evolution has caused a lot of people to doubt God's word and yet the church is fighting it with the least effective ammunition they've got.The Gap theory is the theory of evolution's worst nightmare and yet hardly anybody knows about it.However up until the 1950's it was being taught in the Christian church in America and much of Europe and it was the bread and butter teaching of the church long before Charles Darwin published "On the origin of Species"in 1859. Rev Thomas Chalmers was preaching the Gap theory about 70 years before Charles Darwin published his book.Also William Buckland the first geology professor at Oxford taught the Gap theory,I actually don't like to call it a theory I prefer the Gap fact.J Vernon McGee taught the Gap theory too and he was a great bible teacher who led many people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.You can find the Gap theory in a Scofield reference bible,Dake Reference bible and several others as well.

Abel, do you understand why you won't find any Christian ancient Hebrew scholars currently defending the gap theory, despite the fact that it was popular long ago?

Philip wrote:Abel, do you understand why you won't find any Christian ancient Hebrew scholars currently defending the gap theory, despite the fact that it was popular long ago?

Yes because the Gap theory is not as popular today and is underestimated imo I think they think they don't need to as it has been suppressed by the church.I don't think they have done much research on it from everything I have read critics say about it,based on what they say they don't even understand it.I believe it is the most truthful creation theory out there and one of the reasons is because of what critics say about it however if it could be adequately refuted then I could change my mind because my motto is "Let God be true and every man a liar" and I repent when God shows me I'm wrong thus far he hasn't and what I've read critics say about it let's me know they don't even really know about it and have not biblically refuted it.Let me know if you have info I don't know about that refuted it and I'll check it out because I have not seen it adequately biblically refuted yet. I don't go on man's opinions I need biblical reasons why it is wrong.St Augustine was around about 500 years ago,long before Geologists made discoveries showing the earth was old and long before evolution became so popular yet this is a quote from him on what was commonly believed in his day.

“Chapter VIII—Heaven and Earth were made “In the beginning;” afterwards the world, during six days, from shapeless matter.
For very wonderful is this corporeal heaven; of which firmament between water and water, the second day, after the creation of light, Thou saidst, Let it be made, and it was made. Which firmament Thou calledst heaven; the heaven, that is, to this earth and sea, which Thou madest the third day, by giving a visible figure to the formless matter, which Thou madest before all days. For already hadst Thou made both an heaven, before all days; but that was the heaven of this heaven; because In the beginning Thou hadst made heaven and earth. But this same earth which Thou madest was formless matter, because it was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the deep…”

This fits in nicely with the Gap theory. So why do critics claim that the Gap theory was made up to fit the bible into science?Here read this about The Gap theory on Wikipedia about the history of the Gap theory yet this quote from Augustine proves that the idea was in the church long before geologists made discoveries that showed the earth was old.It seems at the very least the idea for a Gap has been around for along time a lot longer than modern day geology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism