Reasons to Believe - RTB old earth

[alastairblake]

Just wondering if anyone here has felt satisfied with RTB's creation model, and their holding to scripture's inerrancy , in harmony with an Old Earth view.

[backwoodsman]

I do, and from past discussions I believe there are some others here. RTB's model is the only one I've seen that's perfectly consistent with both science and Scripture, without compromising anything from either.

[TK]

Although I am not extremely interested in the topic-- I consider myself an Old Earth/universe creationist, primarily due to Hugh Ross's arguments.

Once again, if I am proven to be wrong some day I wont be disappointed or even surprised.

TK

[alastairblake]

from what I have gathered from The Narrow Path radio program, I think Steve would lean more young earth?

if anyone has some good arguments against RTB's presentation, I would enjoy hearing them.

I guess Id lean more with RTB at the moment.

[backwoodsman]

from what I have gathered from The Narrow Path radio program, I think Steve would lean more young earth?

Yes, but I'm sure he'll repent eventually.. LOL

To me, what makes this an important topic is the deep divisions caused by ICR, Kent Hovind, and the like, who for several decades have been indoctrinating Christians to believe that anyone who isn't a young-earth creationist is an evolutionist who doesn't believe the Bible and can't possibly be a Christian. I don't mind in the least if someone chooses to be a YEC, but building a ministry around convincing some believers that other believers aren't really believers is a very dangerous and destructive game -- especially when done by consistently misrepresenting the views of those with whom they disagree, cherry-picking data that seems to support their view while ignoring the rest, etc. When the opportunity presents itself, I try to undo some of the damage in my tiny little sphere of influence.

[Paidion]

At present I don't see how Hugh Ross's position agrees with scripture better than the young earth model. Indeed, as I see it, it does not agree with scripture.
However, I am not prepared to argue technically. What happened in the distant past cannot be determined. It's mostly guess work, some of which is based on other guesses, and then labelled "scientific".

[steve7150]

At present I don't see how Hugh Ross's position agrees with scripture better than the young earth model. Indeed, as I see it, it does not agree with scripture



I don't see how the old earth model contradicts scripture since "yom" is not used as 24hrs in Gen 2 or Psalm 90 both written by Moses.
Our "science" tells us the universe is about 15 billion years old which i don't think s/b simply dismissed as guessing, yet it is true God could have made everything with a mature appearance for his own reasons.

[steve]

The conclusions based upon current scientific calculations may turn out to be correct, but I do not think it safe to go with them without first examining the worldview presuppositions that drive them. The assumptions 1) that observed processes have been constant from the beginning, and 2) that there has been no supernatural intervention that would render scientific calculations based upon naturalistic uniformitarianism unreliable, are presuppositions that do not strike me as self-evident, except to atheists. What is not self-evident may turn out to be true, but no one should be embarrassed by the fact that they consider such things as open to question.

I am not a scientist, but I do enjoy discovering and evaluating world views. I know that Ross has a Christian world view, but I don't know if he depends fully upon it in evaluating the scientific data. His science is over my head. I do believe, though, that the Bible's teaching is most naturally taken to point toward a young earth, even when considering the uses of the word yom in scripture. I have no preference about the matter. However, I am going to go with what seems to be taught in scripture up until the point that unmistakable scientific (or other) evidence compels me to interpret scripture in a way that seem less natural to me.

[Paidion]

I don't see how the old earth model contradicts scripture since "yom" is not used as 24hrs in Gen 2 or Psalm 90 both written by Moses.

The Hebrew word "yowm" occurs 1931 times in the Old Testament, and it certainly appears to be used in the same way we use it today. Even in Psalm 90!

The days (yowm) of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. (Psalms 90:10)

Would we not use "days" in this way today? Surely "the days of our lives" are not millions or billions of years.

Also, the days of Genesis 1 have "evenings" and "mornings". I suppose one could take these figuratively. Even in our day,we speak of the latter days of a person's life as the "evening" of his life. But to take the account in Genesis 1 as figurative is not the natural way of reading it. I realize that the authors of some parts of the Bible meant their words to be taken figuratively. But I see no indication that Moses had such a thing in mind when he wrote Genesis 1. Or do you think that although Moses meant it the way it naturally reads, God meant it figuratively?

[steve7150]

The days (yowm) of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. (Psalms have 90:10)

Would we not use "days" in this way today? Surely "the days of our lives" are not millions or billions of years.

Also, the days of Genesis 1 have "evenings" and "mornings". I suppose one could take these figuratively. Even in our day,we speak of the latter days of a person's life as the "evening" of his life. But to take the account in Genesis 1 as figurative is not the natural way of reading it. I realize that the authors of some parts of the Bible meant their words to be taken figuratively. But I see no indication that Moses had such a thing in mind when he wrote Genesis 1. Or do you think that although Moses meant it the way it naturally reads, God meant it figuratively?




I had in mind "For in your sight a thousand years are like yesterday that passes by, like a few hours of the night " Psalms 90.4

And we also the use of evening and morning here "in the morning it sprouts and grows, by evening it withers and dries up" Psalm 90.6


Actually to me "evening" in Gen 1 sounds like desolation and "morning" sounds like the birth of a creation.