Why is young earth so important?

[Stu]

It is my personal opinion, that the authors clearly favored a 6 day literal creation. And I think there is plenty to suggest that and hard to argue with. We know from evidence that is not the case. But even if we can argue around technicalities for a possible 6 day creation scenario, I'd say it still is a far fetched idea, given what we know today.

Could you elaborate on this please.

I used to be an OEC but am now a YEC, so I would love to know what this evidence is you speak of?

[Philip]

Interestingly, in Isaiah 25:6, which references the wedding feast of the Lamb (the great feast where all followers of Christ will celebrate Christ's victory over death and the end of all sorrows, in which "He will swallow up death forever"), we're told: "On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines."

KINGDOM SPAM???!!!
I don't think these "meats" will include Spam. But if God has prepared a feast celebrating the end of death, how could He possibly serve choice meats (or "full of marrow") - of apparently multiple types. UNLESS the death that ends is only the spiritual and physical death of HUMANS? And so while we do see Heaven described as when "the lion will eat straw like the ox" - does that mean that they no longer will be harvested for food? What about the meat at the banquet? Where will that come from? What is it? Imitation meat? Sound familiar? Or will it only TASTE familiar?

[Jac3510]

YEC eschatology does not have death completely ended in the Millennial Kingdom (which is what Isa 25 is describing, not heaven). Cf. Isa 65:20. The curse of Gen 3 will certainly be more or less removed, and as such death will be severely curtailed. But that doesn't change the fact that even in the Millennial Kingdom there will still be sin in the world. And that is a condition that did not exist in Eden prior to the Fall.

[RickD]

Wasn't Satan in the garden before the fall? Sin was already in the world before the fall. Sin entered humanity at the fall.

[Philip]

Let's see, so Isaiah 25:6 is describing a feast celebrating Christ's victory over death and the end of all sorrows, in which "He will swallow up death forever" - and then as part of the banquet He serves a variety of "choice meats." IF this passage is celebrating the end of death - and God serves the meat of dead animals, what does that say about what this passage is about? Certainly not about the end of ANIMAL deaths, even though we're told that animals in Heaven will live together peacefully, that they will not harm man. Eating meat requires an animal to be killed. The menu including meat also makes me doubt that God associates animal deaths with the corruption caused by sin - that they are in any way bad - or ever WERE bad.

as such death will be severely curtailed

The assertion that this is only talking about the millennium seems rather strange. The entire immediate context of the celebratory meal is that it is 1) a believers feast at the Lord's table, and 2) it is for "ALL" peoples. To me, this suggests that as "ALL" people's are at the Lord's table, that 1) all at the table are believers and 2) there are no other people left because they are ALL at the table. Does this sound like sin and ANY death of PEOPLE are still around? Further, we're told, per the context, that "in THAT day," the "reproach of His people He will take away from ALL the earth." Well, if there is no more "reproach of His people" in "ALL of the earth," this sure doesn't sound like a place where ANY sin still exists. And this TOTAL victory of Christ is precisely what the celebratory meal is all about. It's DONE! Unless we're to believe that the celebration is premature. Do you celebrate before a victory is COMPLETE or after the glory of it's completion?

Further, we're told that: "... the hand of the Lord will rest on this mountain, and Moab (symbolic of the enemies of God's peoples) shall be trampled down in his place (And so WHERE is this place? On God's Holy mountain and the place where he rests His hand - which is also the site of the great celebratory banquet of the Lord. To me, this suggests that all enemies are vanquished, and great joy will abound at the great banquet in celebration for salvation, over victory of all death and all enemies. It does not sound like a millennium period in which Satan is yet to be loosed (although temporarily) once more, as ALL enemies are vanquished. If they were not, the spot where the banquet is held would still be teeming with enemies of God and His people - and I can't imagine that such a celebration would be yet warranted.

[Jac3510]

Let's see, so Isaiah 25:6 is describing a feast celebrating Christ's victory over death and the end of all sorrows, in which "He will swallow up death forever" - and then as part of the banquet He serves a variety of "choice meats." IF this passage is celebrating the end of death - and God serves the meat of dead animals, what does that say about what this passage is about? Certainly not about the end of ANIMAL deaths, even though we're told that animals in Heaven will live together peacefully, that they will not harm man. Eating meat requires an animal to be killed. The menu including meat also makes me doubt that God associates animal deaths with the corruption caused by sin - that they are in any way bad - or ever WERE bad.

as such death will be severely curtailed

The assertion that this is only talking about the millennium seems rather strange. The entire immediate context of the celebratory meal is that it is 1) a believers feast at the Lord's table, and 2) it is for "ALL" peoples. To me, this suggests that as "ALL" people's are at the Lord's table, that 1) all at the table are believers and 2) there are no other people left because they are ALL at the table. Does this sound like sin and ANY death of PEOPLE are still around? Further, we're told, per the context, that "in THAT day," the "reproach of His people He will take away from ALL the earth." Well, if there is no more "reproach of His people" in "ALL of the earth," this sure doesn't sound like a place where ANY sin still exists. And this TOTAL victory of Christ is precisely what the celebratory meal is all about. It's DONE! Unless we're to believe that the celebration is premature. Do you celebrate before a victory is COMPLETE or after the glory of it's completion?

Further, we're told that: "... the hand of the Lord will rest on this mountain, and Moab (symbolic of the enemies of God's peoples) shall be trampled down in his place (And so WHERE is this place? On God's Holy mountain and the place where he rests His hand - which is also the site of the great celebratory banquet of the Lord. To me, this suggests that all enemies are vanquished, and great joy will abound at the great banquet in celebration for salvation, over victory of all death and all enemies. It does not sound like a millennium period in which Satan is yet to be loosed (although temporarily) once more, as ALL enemies are vanquished. If they were not, the spot where the banquet is held would still be teeming with enemies of God and His people - and I can't imagine that such a celebration would be yet warranted.

The banquet will happen at the beginning of the Millennium. The overthrow of death will occur at the end, at the creation of the new heavens and new earth. See Constable's Expository Notes on Isaiah, pp. 113-115.

[abelcainsbrother]

Thanks for posting the references rick regarding yom, i am aware of these. Even if i grant that yom is an age in Genesis 1, that still makes no sense because the later writers didn't consider that when mentioning creation account , if it had been that apparent they would have. But as i said, its a no brainer for them. They took it as it was, only now that we have evidence for oec, is why we need to rethink yom in Genesis otherwise there would be no need.

You could look at it that way or you could look at it the way I do.God's word is revealed over time and before man started realizing the age of the earth it was not a big issue in the church,but it is now and so God's word has revealed itself to be timeless and right at the right time and it proves man wrong whether they are Christian teaching a young earth or an atheist teaching evolution.And yet the Christians still teaching a young earth despite the evidence refuse to change based on tradition biblical teaching instead of a new revelation revealed in God's word at the right time.You see God's word is timeless and revealed over time and now that we have evidence for an old earth the biblical Gap theory that was always in the bible has now been proven correct based on the evidence of an old earth and forensic scientific evidence of a former world that existed that perished before this world was even created.Check out Isaiah 48:3-the end.

[Philip]

ACBrother, please consider the following linked scholarly article. While once popular amongst them, there is a reason why most Hebrew scholars today dismiss the "Gap Theory" - also known as the "Restitution Theory." Why? Because the structure and the precise rules of Hebrew grammar will not allow for it: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedB ... Theory.pdf

BTW, I lean toward Old Earth / progressive creationism, and like yourself, I do not believe in Darwinism /evolutionary scenarios. But I disbelieve them because of the scientific problems, not to mention the Scriptural and theological aspects. So, just because the "Days" of Creation were likely very long periods, that does not mean that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Scholar Michael Heiser explains the problem: "In a nutshell, the theory is overturned by Hebrew grammar — specifically the fact that we have a classic waw-disjunctive beginning Gen 1:2 (Hebrew conjunction waw prefixed to a noun instead of a verb, which mars any narrative sequence). This is basically why no Hebrew grammarian defends the view. It matters not that one can find ONE (count it) other example of the verb hayah (“to be”) in an identical grammatical construction that could be translated “became” (a key idea in the gap theory) precisely because the waw disjunctive that begins 1:2 forbids a linear sequence of events. (And the fact that a search for the identical construction with hayah in Gen 1:2 where the meaning can be “became” only yields one result should also tell us something about the grammatical merits of the gap theory)."

[Audie]

[

an atheist teaching evolution.And yet the Christians still teaching a young earth despite the evidence refuse to change based on tradition biblical teaching instead of a new revelation revealed in God's word at the right time.You see God's word is timeless and revealed over time and now that we have evidence for an old earth the biblical Gap theory that was always in the bible has now been proven correct based on the evidence of an old earth and forensic scientific evidence of a former world that existed that perished before this world was even created.Check out Isaiah 48:3-the end.

Strictly speaking of course, one cannot prove any theory.

But yes, there is in fact considerable and strong evidence for a very old earth.

[Jac3510]

Thanks for posting the references rick regarding yom, i am aware of these. Even if i grant that yom is an age in Genesis 1, that still makes no sense because the later writers didn't consider that when mentioning creation account , if it had been that apparent they would have. But as i said, its a no brainer for them. They took it as it was, only now that we have evidence for oec, is why we need to rethink yom in Genesis otherwise there would be no need.

You could look at it that way or you could look at it the way I do.God's word is revealed over time and before man started realizing the age of the earth it was not a big issue in the church,but it is now and so God's word has revealed itself to be timeless and right at the right time and it proves man wrong whether they are Christian teaching a young earth or an atheist teaching evolution.And yet the Christians still teaching a young earth despite the evidence refuse to change based on tradition biblical teaching instead of a new revelation revealed in God's word at the right time.You see God's word is timeless and revealed over time and now that we have evidence for an old earth the biblical Gap theory that was always in the bible has now been proven correct based on the evidence of an old earth and forensic scientific evidence of a former world that existed that perished before this world was even created.Check out Isaiah 48:3-the end.

It's seems the theory you are suggesting makes it completely impossible to know what the Bible says at all and that we must ultimately deny its status as revelation. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that neo is correct and that the biblical writers took yom to refer to a normal day. And suppose that OEC advocates are correct that that yom REALLY referred to an age. That would mean that either Moses intended yom to mean a 24 hour day, in which case both he and his readers understood his meaning correctly but were wrong about what Scripture meant; or else Moses intended yom to mean an age, in which case his readers misunderstood what Scripture meant. In EITHER case, the only way they would have had to know what Scripture REALLY meant was to wait 2000 years until modern science came along and showed them (whether Moses AND the readers or just the readers) what the text really meant. Therefore, the text, as it is written, cannot be regarded (on your theory) as revelation. It must be regarded as some magic code that needs to be decoded by later science, and only at THAT point does it become revelation.

But, of course, the problem with that view is that you have no way of knowing whether or not enough revelation has come today to justify your claim that the text is revelation to you. It may be that science will yet show that both views are wrong and some other we have not yet thought of is correct. And worse, how do you limit this hermeneutical principle to Genesis 1 alone? You've already brought Isaiah into it. So what about the gospels? On your view, the Mormons could be right. God just needs to give us later revelation to show us that we were really misreading previous revelation all along.

Look, the bottom line is that the only way to maintain an objective biblical interpretation is to stick with authorial intent. You don't get to appeal to the mysticism of God as the "real" author to get away from difficulties in the text. Either the human authors were right in what the intended to write or they were wrong. If the former, then the Bible is not revelation. It is, at BEST, source material for revelation, and if THAT is the case, then there is no such thing as revelation at all. You may as well accept the claims of the Catholic church and accept their magisterium as the full authority, because at least in that case you have SOME reason to believe what you do other than your own mere preferences. Choose any authority you like to bow to, but please, for the love of God, don't let that authority be yourself.

[Audie]

Thanks for posting the references rick regarding yom, i am aware of these. Even if i grant that yom is an age in Genesis 1, that still makes no sense because the later writers didn't consider that when mentioning creation account , if it had been that apparent they would have. But as i said, its a no brainer for them. They took it as it was, only now that we have evidence for oec, is why we need to rethink yom in Genesis otherwise there would be no need.

You could look at it that way or you could look at it the way I do.God's word is revealed over time and before man started realizing the age of the earth it was not a big issue in the church,but it is now and so God's word has revealed itself to be timeless and right at the right time and it proves man wrong whether they are Christian teaching a young earth or an atheist teaching evolution.And yet the Christians still teaching a young earth despite the evidence refuse to change based on tradition biblical teaching instead of a new revelation revealed in God's word at the right time.You see God's word is timeless and revealed over time and now that we have evidence for an old earth the biblical Gap theory that was always in the bible has now been proven correct based on the evidence of an old earth and forensic scientific evidence of a former world that existed that perished before this world was even created.Check out Isaiah 48:3-the end.

It's seems the theory you are suggesting makes it completely impossible to know what the Bible says at all and that we must ultimately deny its status as revelation. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that neo is correct and that the biblical writers took yom to refer to a normal day. And suppose that OEC advocates are correct that that yom REALLY referred to an age. That would mean that either Moses intended yom to mean a 24 hour day, in which case both he and his readers understood his meaning correctly but were wrong about what Scripture meant; or else Moses intended yom to mean an age, in which case his readers misunderstood what Scripture meant. In EITHER case, the only way they would have had to know what Scripture REALLY meant was to wait 2000 years until modern science came along and showed them (whether Moses AND the readers or just the readers) what the text really meant. Therefore, the text, as it is written, cannot be regarded (on your theory) as revelation. It must be regarded as some magic code that needs to be decoded by later science, and only at THAT point does it become revelation.

But, of course, the problem with that view is that you have no way of knowing whether or not enough revelation has come today to justify your claim that the text is revelation to you. It may be that science will yet show that both views are wrong and some other we have not yet thought of is correct. And worse, how do you limit this hermeneutical principle to Genesis 1 alone? You've already brought Isaiah into it. So what about the gospels? On your view, the Mormons could be right. God just needs to give us later revelation to show us that we were really misreading previous revelation all along.

Look, the bottom line is that the only way to maintain an objective biblical interpretation is to stick with authorial intent. You don't get to appeal to the mysticism of God as the "real" author to get away from difficulties in the text. Either the human authors were right in what the intended to write or they were wrong. If the former, then the Bible is not revelation. It is, at BEST, source material for revelation, and if THAT is the case, then there is no such thing as revelation at all. You may as well accept the claims of the Catholic church and accept their magisterium as the full authority, because at least in that case you have SOME reason to believe what you do other than your own mere preferences. Choose any authority you like to bow to, but please, for the love of God, don't let that authority be yourself.

Cant one at times be objective by looking to outside sources to corroborate or
correct the interpretation?

Authorial intent is good, like "original intent" when looking at the US constitution,
tho it still must be inferred, interpreted.

[Jac3510]

We should look at outside sources, but only to determine authorial intent, which limits us to two ways of doing so

1. Looking at sources that the author had access to and had likely knowledge of. Moreover, it would need to be shown that the intended authorship had access to and likely knowledge of that same source. For a good example of that kind of analysis, go to my blog and see my analysis of the resurrection in the Gospel of John;

2. Using outside sources the author did not have access to rule out as impossible one or more possible intended meanings. That is, if you have two possible readings of a text that both can lay equal claim to being the authorial intent, outside sources can be used to show which reading is consistent with the world as the author would have known it. In that case, those sources help us see the world as the author did, and therefore rule out views that he would have either been ignorant of else that did not represent the world as he knew it. For an example of this kind of analysis, see the paper I wrote on Jephthah, again at my blog, in which I point out what the political and theological (which in those days as always were closely related) realities of both the author's day offer us a solution to the very difficult interpretational questions of that text.

We can NEVER get away from authorial intent. It is the sum total of interpretation. To the extent you get away from that, you get away from objectivity in interpretation. In the case of Scripture, to get away from objectivity is to deny its status as revelation, so there are serious theological issues at stake here.

[Audie]

We should look at outside sources, but only to determine authorial intent, which limits us to two ways of doing so

1. Looking at sources that the author had access to and had likely knowledge of. Moreover, it would need to be shown that the intended authorship had access to and likely knowledge of that same source. For a good example of that kind of analysis, go to my blog and see my analysis of the resurrection in the Gospel of John;

2. Using outside sources the author did not have access to rule out as impossible one or more possible intended meanings. That is, if you have two possible readings of a text that both can lay equal claim to being the authorial intent, outside sources can be used to show which reading is consistent with the world as the author would have known it. In that case, those sources help us see the world as the author did, and therefore rule out views that he would have either been ignorant of else that did not represent the world as he knew it. For an example of this kind of analysis, see the paper I wrote on Jephthah, again at my blog, in which I point out what the political and theological (which in those days as always were closely related) realities of both the author's day offer us a solution to the very difficult interpretational questions of that text.

We can NEVER get away from authorial intent. It is the sum total of interpretation. To the extent you get away from that, you get away from objectivity in interpretation. In the case of Scripture, to get away from objectivity is to deny its status as revelation, so there are serious theological issues at stake here.

.

Ok, that makes sense, a person would write about the world as he knew it.

I have a friend from the Philippines, who was so surprised when she learned after
coming to the USA that the earth is actually round,like an orange.

Might those who wrote the Bible not have likewise been limited in their
knowledge of the world around them ?

[Audie]

It is my personal opinion, that the authors clearly favored a 6 day literal creation. And I think there is plenty to suggest that and hard to argue with. We know from evidence that is not the case. But even if we can argue around technicalities for a possible 6 day creation scenario, I'd say it still is a far fetched idea, given what we know today.

Could you elaborate on this please.

I used to be an OEC but am now a YEC, so I would love to know what this evidence is you speak of?

If iI may step in with a thought, there is well over 100,000 years of ice in Antarctica.

[Jac3510]

Ok, that makes sense, a person would write about the world as he knew it.

I have a friend from the Philippines, who was so surprised when she learned after
coming to the USA that the earth is actually round,like an orange.

Might those who wrote the Bible not have likewise been limited in their
knowledge of the world around them ?

Sure. I don't know of any cases where their limited knowledge lead them to make statements that turned out to be false, but I'm certainly not claiming that the biblical writers were omniscient. We do, though, need to take their limited knowledge as a caution against reading modern scientific discoveries back into the biblical text. For example, apologists like to argue that the Bible says that the heavens were "stretched out," and that somehow shows a knowledge that the universe is expanding (cf. Job 9:8; Ps 104:2; Isa 40:22; Jer 10:12; Zech 12:1, etc.). As you can guess, I don't think that works at all. In any case, from a hermenutical perspective, the implications for the Genesis 1 debate should be obvious. We shouldn't affirm any position that can't be justified by a reading of the text alone as written within its own cultural context. And that's one of the reasons I am a YEC advocate. I just don't think you can sustain OEC only on a textual basis.