OEC v. YEC (Not a competition)

[zoegirl]

You're right. Not really a metaphorical passage. Just looking into other options. Although some details are left out, i think Genesis gives us too many to be considered a metaphor. Why mention when you made the plants and the animals?

But, that brings me to my next point. Why mention them? If we follow the history of time, we will see it matching genesis, all except for the timescale. History says that first came x, then y, then z, and that it took billions of years. The bible says that first came x, then y, then z and it took 6 days (the 6 day part is open to interpretation). So maybe the importance is the order of the creation rather than the timeframe?

I don't know. Just throwing stuff out there.

I guess i can consider myself in the middle. I think the earth is old, but if i'm wrong i won't care. When God lets me know how old the earth is, exactly, he can explain why it doesn't match our look at time (at least right now. Ten, twenty, fifter, one hundred years from now, it may look different. The big bang may have happened a few years ago.)

I guess my biggest reason for clinging to OEC is that it makes the creation more tangable. I can look around and say, "So that's how he did it" (Although it still is impossibly amazing). I have this view of God in a white lab coat. First he sets the parameters (ie gravity and such) then he goes BANG and the universe starts. Then planet formation happens. When he sees Earth form, just as he knew it would come, he plants some animals. LEts them have their fun. Adds some more animals. Waits. Adds Adam and Eve and says "Be fruitful and mutliple. By the way, stay away from that tree"

Could be wrong. But when God lets me know the truth, i bet it'll be amazing.

amen and ditto

[Forum Monk]

Hi ttoews,

The words of John 2:19 are explicitly declared….therefore, should we believe that Jesus rebuilt the Jewish temple in 3 days? It seems that the Jews and the disciples did indeed believe that Jesus was saying that he would rebuild Herod's temple in 3 days. Ahhh, but wait…at verse 22 more evidence is available so that the disciples can properly understand the words of Jesus at verse 19. It seems that God doesn't always mean what the explicit wording/literal interpretation would require and that the actual meaning is not grasped until further information is made available to God's faithful. So why should one insist on a 24 hour interpretation of wrt Genesis 1?

Your example illustrates a very important principle of Biblical interpretation. When you a take text out of context it is very easy to question its meaning. It is clear that Jesus spoke in parables, he told his disciples this, it was intentional. So in the example you cite the true meaning of Jesus' illustration in revealed in scripture to be his death and resurrection three days later. If we stopped reading at the end of the verse you quoted we would assume he was speaking of the temple proper. But the scripture itself tells us the true meaning:

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

Continuing your own quotation in context the meaning of the parable is given to us. We do not need to guess what Jesus may have meant. So the evidence is given to us in the scripture itself.

I don't believe that anyone is saying that it is impossible for God to do X in 24 hours…..rather they are saying that the evidence indicates that God did not do X in a mere 24 hours.

Your statement "they are saying" suggests you are not saying it. And by saying "mere 24 hours" you are implying this is too short of a time for God. So in the above example, the scripture gives us the evidence. So where is "their" scriptural evidence that another meaning should be applied to Genesis? Instead, here is the scriptural evidence that supports the meaning as written:

Genesis 2:3
And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:17
It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "

Deuteronomy 4:32
[ The Lord Is God ] Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth;

Hebrews 4:4
And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."

The only evidence they have, ttoews, is the evidence which comes from the eyes, but the scripture declares another evidence and the hebrew scholars and the biblical scholars for thousands of years have agreed. One can not look at the miracle of creation and diminish it with human reasoning. I posted previously that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Where is faith if you can hold the evidence in your hand, and observe it and measure it? God is asking something much more from us than to lean on our own understanding.

[Forum Monk]

So maybe the importance is the order of the creation rather than the timeframe?

Then there is no need to question the timeframe.

I guess i can consider myself in the middle. I think the earth is old, but if i'm wrong i won't care. When God lets me know how old the earth is, exactly, he can explain why it doesn't match our look at time (at least right now.

I also look forward to this time because I do not understand it either. I know the evidence you see and seems convincing. I can nearly recite it to you as well as anyone. But I am holding out for the evidence that proves God is true without reinterpretation. The thing is...I think it may not be revealed until I see Him.

I guess my biggest reason for clinging to OEC is that it makes the creation more tangable.

Yes you want to touch it don't you? I understand. Faith, I do not understand. It is so simple for a child. But I struggle with it.

[zoegirl]

Just to go back to the idea that an old earth is not a recent idea from church fathers.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Sc ... %20Science 

MOre on the meaning of yom, although you have probably heard it all before
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1990/PSCF3-90Fischer.html

Clearly, Augustine thought a literal interpretation of Genesis meant time periods longer than days

Second paper brings up other early church fathers before Ussher as well as the thoughts on yom

Also neat
"The more startling irony in all this is that while many young-earth creationists have resorted to science-bashing through what they call "creation science," working scientists in their search for truth, wherever it may lead, are finding in some instances that science is taking them straight to the Bible!

The materialistic Big Bang theory has fallen on hard times. Even though most physicists readily accept the sequence of events which followed, attempts to explain the cause and origin of that giant explosion is a whole new ball game. An exciting proposition from a Christian perspective is the "New Inflationary Theory" which posits that the universe originated from nothing, as in John 1:1.

One scientist, Dr. Robert Gange, reports in his book Origins and Destiny:

In the Big Bang theory, our hands were tied because we could not go back in time to the actual beginning. A small impenetrable interval of time, called a `Planck time' separated us from seeing the true beginning. But the New Inflationary Theory frees us from this limitation and gives us a picture of the universe from the moment it unfolded. Were we to condense its implications into one sentence, it would be this: The universe seems to have come into existence out of nothing. That's right; out of nothing.12

Now let's see, who can create something out of nothing? You guessed it-God can! That might make a good starting point for creationists to use in their fight against evolution, if there weren't so many caught up in trying to prove that the world is young. That's what can happen when we're so busy banging the drum we can't hear the call of the bugle. In the words of Martin Luther: "The Word must stand, for God cannot lie, and heaven and earth must come to ruins before the most insignificant letter or title of His Word, remains unfulfilled.""

[zoegirl]

Another good read

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86Hummel.html

lots of interesting stuff here...

[Forum Monk]

Just to go back to the idea that an old earth is not a recent idea from church fathers.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Sc ... %20Science 

Zoe, must I defend this? Are you really sure you want side-track this thread with an examination of the writings of the early church fathers? It can get very deep. For example, I read the Augustine article you just posted and it is used by other writers as well to support their views by picking and choosing selections from his treatise. I have read the original treatise and I know what he says. No where does he say the days of the bible were long periods of time. No where. The entire work mainly speculates on the events of day one. He struggles to understand the first light that was created and separted from the darkness. He tries to understand if it was a corporeal light or spiritual light. All along he maintains that God is able to create outside the bounds of time as we have all agreed:

Here is a matter that is difficult to understand. God's decree is not pronounced in time, and it is heard, but not in time, by a creature that transcends all time in the contemplation of truth.

Since the divine utterance was spoken without the limitations of time, because the Word, being coeternal with the Father, is not subject to time, was the work produced by the utterance also made independently of time? This is a question that might be asked. But how can such a theory be accepted? It is said that light was made and separated from the darkness, the names “Day” and “Night” being given to them, and Scripture declares, “Evening was made and morning made, one day.”40 Hence it seems that this work of God was done in the space of a day, at the end of which evening came on, which is the beginning of night. Moreover, when the night was spent, a full day was completed, and the morning belonged to a second day, in which God then performed another work.

And when it comes to scientific theories, what does he really say? He says we can accept the theories of men so long as they do not run contrary to scripture but:

But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will so cling to our Mediator, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”75 that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion.

Do you think its worth our time to try to analyze these deep philosphical points of view?

[zoegirl]

No, I don't really care ....it is irrelevant when the theories came up to me. Somehow they worry the YEC's, who believe that we are all heretical evolutionists.

That last article I just posted, though, is interesting...I think ultimately we need to be careful reading too much into the accounts of Genesis, the writer makes some good points


What are you thoughts on that last article?

[zoegirl]

One can not look at the miracle of creation and diminish it with human reasoning. I posted previously that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Where is faith if you can hold the evidence in your hand, and observe it and measure it? God is asking something much more from us than to lean on our own understanding.

Since when does faith exclude figuring things out? Jesus allowed Thomas to feel the holes with his hands.


We still don't understand a huge amount of the universe! we can explore all we want, we will always need faith. There are many scientists who know about the evidence for an old universe who are still Christians and who have strong faith. How prejudicial to immediately judge our faith based on our views of Creation!


I contend that our faith is stronger for understanding how powerful He is! IMagine Thomas's faith after his confirmation from Christ!

[Forum Monk]

Second paper brings up other early church fathers before Ussher as well as the thoughts on yom

Strangely, not a single one of the early fathers is quoted.

In addition, z/g, I object to these kinds of arguments being put forth as they frame my comments into a context which I have neither declared nor intended:

"The more startling irony in all this is that while many young-earth creationists have resorted to science-bashing through what they call "creation science,"

I have explicitly denied that I am YEC and have never given a single YEC argument - nor an OEC. Further I have not made a single science-bashing statement.

That might make a good starting...if there weren't so many caught up in trying to prove that the world is young. That's what can happen when we're so busy banging the drum we can't hear the call of the bugle.

Again, using these kinds of quotations in this discussion, misrepresent me and the case which I have laid out in defence of the unadulterated scriptures.

In the words of Martin Luther: "The Word must stand, for God cannot lie, and heaven and earth must come to ruins before the most insignificant letter or title of His Word, remains unfulfilled.""

An early church father.

1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."
Rom 3:1-4

To me, this means when every evidence before my face is contrary to the word of God. I will stand with God. We have been entrusted with the very words of God and we are not to add or take away from them. If we alter the meanings, where will it stop and how can we trust the words?

Does this mean I reject all truth in the secular world? Not at all. I support science and all truth as long as it agrees with the immutable word. No one who reads this should misrepresent me. I am a far from being a science prude.

[Forum Monk]

IMagine Thomas's faith after his confirmation from Christ!

I totally disagree z/g. Who has more faith; he who has walked with Him, talked to Him, held the hem of His garment, touch His nail scarred hands and then believed? Or he who believes having never seen Him, or heard the tone of His voice, or felt the warmth of His breath?

[zoegirl]

I have explicitly denied that I am YEC and have never given a single YEC argument - nor an OEC. Further I have not made a single science-bashing statement.

This was not meant to you specifically, but you have stated that you are taking the opposite side of OEC. So....I was wanting to point out the weakness of YEC.

So what are your complaints, then of OEC? DO you support the Gap theory? Was the Gap over 4 billion years? Considering the the evidence supports that the earth is around 5 bya...

[Forum Monk]

So what are your complaints, then of OEC? DO you support the Gap theory? Was the Gap over 4 billion years? Considering the the evidence supports that the earth is around 5 bya...

I stand for the Word of God and what it has said since Moses wrote it.

That is all.

[ttoews]

Hi Mr Monk,

Your example illustrates a very important principle of Biblical interpretation. When you a take text out of context it is very easy to question its meaning.

That's interesting, but back on point, does anyone who advocates OEC actually take Genesis 1 out of context....it seems to me that they take the chapter as a whole in its context and throw in Chapter 2 for good measure

It is clear that Jesus spoke in parables, he told his disciples this, it was intentional.

interesting, but calling one's body a temple isn't a parable now, is it?

Continuing your own quotation in context the meaning of the parable is given to us. We do not need to guess what Jesus may have meant. So the evidence is given to us in the scripture itself.

indeed, on that occasion it is....but that is not always the case. Take Matt: 26:26 for example (you may fill in a greater context if you like):

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

I note that if you were a Roman Catholic you would be treating this passage much the same way that you argue that one should treat the Gen 1 passage. Jesus explicitly states that the bread is actually His body and being a good literalist, that is the way the RC would understand the passage. The RC could even quote a great number of ECFs in support of that literal view and would chide me for trusting my senses to declare that Jesus did not actually mean what He actually said and for preferring the evidence of my senses to trusting in His words. (Sure does sound like your argument here, doesn't it?)....but being a good protestant lad I am not bound by a literal reading that defies what I can observe nor am I bound by the limited understanding(s) of the ECFs.

Your statement "they are saying" suggests you are not saying it. And by saying "mere 24 hours" you are implying this is too short of a time for God.

no that is not my implication....it is your erroneous inference. I am not saying it is too short of a time for God, rather I am saying that the evidence indicates that He chose to take a longer period of time. Similarly, when I tell the RC that it is still bread and not Christ's actual body, I am not saying that it is impossible for God to confuse our senses so that what is Christ's body actually looks, smells, tastes and feels like a piece of bread, ...but I am saying that all the physical evidence that is available to us indicates that it is still bread and not a body.

So in the above example, the scripture gives us the evidence. So where is "their" scriptural evidence that another meaning should be applied to Genesis?

I think that has already been supplied to you...the naming by Adam of all the animals in but a portion of a single day, the making of the greater light to govern the day only at day four...

The only evidence they have, ttoews, is the evidence which comes from the eyes, but the scripture declares another evidence and the hebrew scholars and the biblical scholars for thousands of years have agreed. One can not look at the miracle of creation and diminish it with human reasoning. I posted previously that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Where is faith if you can hold the evidence in your hand, and observe it and measure it? God is asking something much more from us than to lean on our own understanding.

Yikes, if I buy this line of argument I would have to accept transubstantiation too....I can hear my RC friends declaring: The only evidence you have, ttoews, is the evidence which comes from the eyes, but the scripture declares another evidence and the greek scholars and the biblical scholars for thousands of years have agreed. One can not look at the miracle of the eucharist and diminish it with human reasoning. We have told you previously that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Where is faith if you can hold the evidence in your hand, and observe it and measure it? God is asking something much more from us than to lean on our own understanding.

BTW, I haven't bothered to read the early pages of this thread so could you clarify one matter for me...do you actually hold to the arguemnt that you make, or are you making the argument for the love of an exercise?

[Byblos]

The only evidence they have, ttoews, is the evidence which comes from the eyes, but the scripture declares another evidence and the hebrew scholars and the biblical scholars for thousands of years have agreed. One can not look at the miracle of creation and diminish it with human reasoning. I posted previously that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Where is faith if you can hold the evidence in your hand, and observe it and measure it? God is asking something much more from us than to lean on our own understanding.

Yikes, if I buy this line of argument I would have to accept transubstantiation too....I can hear my RC friends declaring: The only evidence you have, ttoews, is the evidence which comes from the eyes, but the scripture declares another evidence and the greek scholars and the biblical scholars for thousands of years have agreed. One can not look at the miracle of the eucharist and diminish it with human reasoning. We have told you previously that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Where is faith if you can hold the evidence in your hand, and observe it and measure it? God is asking something much more from us than to lean on our own understanding.

Right on, ttowes. We'll make a believer out of you just yet (in transsubstantiation that is, we're already OECs ).
Sorry, carry on.

[Enigma7457]

I totally disagree z/g. Who has more faith; he who has walked with Him, talked to Him, held the hem of His garment, touch His nail scarred hands and then believed? Or he who believes having never seen Him, or heard the tone of His voice, or felt the warmth of His breath?

I think they can both have the same faith. I am not much different from THomas myself. i had to stick my fingers into his hands before i believed.
What is faith? Can it really be measured? I don't think we should bash (not saying you are, i respect you tremendously) any who NEED proof. BUt now that i have proof, i have the kind of faith i was supposed to have.

Do you think Moses had less faith just because he saw the bush burning? DO you think Paul had less faith because he was blinded? DO you think Peter had less faith since he walked with Christ? What about all of the prophets who had visions? Do you (and indirect you" have more faith because you believe without visions, without walking with him.