Young earth vs. ancient earth- where do you stand?

[Guest]

Yes it says "in six days" therefore the answer must be the following if OE are correct. God is commanding a symbolic honoring of creation from man and commanding man to carry this out in "man days" which are 24 hours each because man is on earth and subject to the laws of the earth and sun.

I believe the creation "week" to be a pattern for our week. It is the same pattern that was used to plant the fields for six years and then let them "rest" for one year. Just because something is used as a pattern doesn't mean that it is identical to it. Land "resting", our "resting", and God "resting" are not all the same. Why should the timeline have to be?
D.

[Guest]

That's a good point Daniel. And that may be what the author intended there in Exodus. However, it seems to me, that when God means something other than "weeks" meaning "7-days", He specifies. Like in the passage you're alluding to about the land "resting".

Lev 25:2 "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When you come into the land which I shall give you, then the land shall have a sabbath to the LORD.
Lev 25:3 'Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop,
Lev 25:4 but during the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath rest, a sabbath to the LORD; you shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard.

In this case, we know it's not identicle because the passage clearly says that it's not identicle. This is not the case with Ex 20:9-11.

[Guest]

That's a good point Daniel. And that may be what the author intended there in Exodus. However, it seems to me, that when God means something other than "weeks" meaning "7-days", He specifies. Like in the passage you're alluding to about the land "resting".

Doesn't that kinda beg the question?
D.

[Guest]

That's a good point Daniel. And that may be what the author intended there in Exodus. However, it seems to me, that when God means something other than "weeks" meaning "7-days", He specifies. Like in the passage you're alluding to about the land "resting".

Doesn't that kinda beg the question?
D.

I think you're right there! Oops.

I am not saying that the creation week is not a pattern. In one instance, (the work week), the pattern is identicle, (since that is after all what the passage in Exodus says), and in another it is a "week of years", as the passage from Lev. says.

Why does the fact that it's a "pattern" mean that it isn't really a 7-day creation week? Why can't the pattern be a litteral 7-day week?

[Guest]

I'm not sure. I gave an example of one such passage. How am I question begging?

It seems to me that if you take a day-age approach, then these passages all refer to some period of time. If you take a literal approach, they all are literal unless specifically stated otherwise. They both assume. It is like the "everywhere 'day' is used with a number" kind of argument. It's only "everywhere" if the point you are trying to support with the argument is correct. To suggest that when it isn't literal is is expressly stated assumes that Gen 1 is literal "days".
D.

[Guest]

Why does the fact that it's a "pattern" mean that it isn't really a 7-day creation week? Why can't the pattern be a litteral 7-day week?

It *can* be literal. I'm just saying that as a pattern it doesn't *have* to be literal. The person that assumes that "day" is a period of time applies it equally to both passages as well.
D.

[Guest]

Derek wrote:

It requires what can only be called eisogesis of passages like Ex 20:9-11 to even begin to fit it into a biblical worldview.

Hi Derek, do we not "read into" passages on a regular basis using our natural understanding of the world around us?

For example:

When the bible talks about the "rising of the sun", we know the the sun does not rise. Therefore we would determine, based on our understanding of the universe, that this is most likely a passage speaking only from man's vantage point.

or

When the bible says things like "trees clapping their hands". Well, we know that trees don't have hands, so we would probably understand this to be poetic.

so

When most scientists understand the universe to be 14 billion years old, I don't have a problem with anyone taking a second look at the creation account in scripture....just like many had to revisit their interpretation of the "rising of the sun"

Is this really someone doing "eisogesis" or someone merely trying to understand the scripture based common sense understanding of the world around them?

PS...I know you disagree with my last statement about it being common sense, but for many people it is common sense. In spite of your different point of view on scientific evidence, do you see where I coming from?

[Guest]

When the bible talks about the "rising of the sun", we know the the sun does not rise. Therefore we would determine, based on our understanding of the universe, that this is most likely a passage speaking only from man's vantage point.

Yes we should understand that as phenomenal language. However, Exodus 20 is God speaking. That is not from "man's point of view", but is spoken to man from God. And in direct comparison to something that man knows. Namely the work week. The plain meaning seems rather clear, in my opinion.

It should also be noted, that the vast majority of the scientific community thinks that we have learned that we evolved from lower life forms. Why do we not look for a way to make that fit?

When the bible says things like "trees clapping their hands". Well, we know that trees don't have hands, so we would probably understand this to be poetic.

Yes. We should interpret poetry as poetry. I have never siad that we should take the whole bible in some wooden literal fashion. I am just useing the context of the passage to determine it's meaning.

When most scientists understand the universe to be 14 billion years old, I don't have a problem with anyone taking a second look at the creation account in scripture....just like many had to revisit their interpretation of the "rising of the sun"

I don't have a problem taking a second look either. I'm not 100 percent convinced of the young earth view myself. I find many of the things Hugh Ross says to be very compelling. However, I don't see his postion as strongly supported by scripture. I also find the writing of the YEC's to be compelling as well, and better supported by scipture.

Is this really someone doing "eisogesis" or someone merely trying to understand the scripture based common sense understanding of the world around them?

No its not. Perhaps I shouldn't have said that. My apologies.

PS...I know you disagree with my last statement about it being common sense, but for many people it is common sense. In spite of your different point of view on scientific evidence, do you see where I coming from?

Yes I see where you're coming from. But I am not sure how the age of the earth could be thought of as something that is "common sense" from either side of the debate. That the earth is 6000 or 40billion years old is not something that is determined from "common sense". I don't think that has anything to do with it.

Thanks for the word of balance brother.

God bless,

[Guest]

I don't have a problem taking a second look either. I'm not 100 percent convinced of the young earth view myself.

Then there is hope for you yet. LOL It is the people that are 100% sure and dogmatic about every little thing that has me concerned. Hard to learn something if we already think we have all the answers. I think we should all be open to the concept that we just may be surprised about some of the things we learn when all is known.

I find many of the things Hugh Ross says to be very compelling. However, I don't see his postion as strongly supported by scripture. I also find the writing of the YEC's to be compelling as well, and better supported by scipture.

OECs start with an understanding of what they see around them and read the text to fit. If it fits, I have no problem with that. I don't see it as a distortion of the text to say that the "days" were not necessarily consecutive or that they had to be "literal" when the word literally does have three different meanings. What I have found in my conversations with YECs is that ultimately their strongest evidence is their understanding of "day" and the genealogies. When you push the issue, they point to all the "creation science" that supports that interpretation. Yet when you talk to the creation "scientists", they select and interpret nature through the same biblical understanding. Both seem to rely on the other as "proof" that the understanding is correct. When you throw in the historical study of creationism and see how the popular view has "evolved" over the last two hundred years, you see that this isn't a topic that we can be at all dogmatic about and remain intellectually honest with the facts. Just my two cents...
D.

[Guest]

Thanks for the reply Derek.

You wrote
However, Exodus 20 is God speaking

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
Isa 45:6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Just to clarify, when you said "God speaking", did you mean in the context of giving a command? If so, then you are correct. Otherwise, Isaiah 45 is one example of God using the phrase "rising of the sun"...there are others as well.

It's times like these I wish we were talking in the same room so we could quickly understand each other.