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

[Guest]

hi derek--

i'll have to look at the Hugh ross books again-- it's been a while. i know there is a long discussion of "yom" but i cant remember all of it.

here's my problem, i suppose. how could moses, who knew nothing of cosmology, etc., describe the formation of stars, galaxies, etc? he didnt even know what a galaxy was, or stars for that matter. he could see stars, but that was about it. in other words, if the OE view is correct, how in the world could moses have made this intelligible to rather primitive people, when the topic is still fairly misunderstood today? sure, God could have inspired him what to write, but it wouldnt do any good because no one would understand what he was talking about e.g., imagine the bible reading: "in the beginning, enormous clouds of hydrogen underwent atomic fusion and formed helium, and over several billion years the helium collapsed via gravity into stars", etc etc-- not sure if my science is correct here but you get my drift). its easier, and more understandable to unscientific people, to say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, leaving out the details.

maybe you can answer a hypothetical for me-- assume for a minute that the OE view is correct (i.e the days were not literal). how would Ch 1 of genesis then read? I guess what i am saying is that perhaps a "poetic" version of what occurred would have been employed by God, through Moses.

i realize, though, that this does not entirely deal with the Yom problem you mention.

TK

[_Derek]

here's my problem, i suppose. how could moses, who knew nothing of cosmology, etc., describe the formation of stars, galaxies, etc? he didnt even know what a galaxy was, or stars for that matter. he could see stars, but that was about it. in other words, if the OE view is correct, how in the world could moses have made this intelligible to rather primitive people, when the topic is still fairly misunderstood today? sure, God could have inspired him what to write, but it wouldnt do any good because no one would understand what he was talking about e.g., imagine the bible reading: "in the beginning, enormous clouds of hydrogen underwent atomic fusion and formed helium, and over several billion years the helium collapsed via gravity into stars", etc etc-- not sure if my science is correct here but you get my drift). its easier, and more understandable to unscientific people, to say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, leaving out the details.

I don't think that Moses would have needed to explain all that to show the people that God took a long time. He could have stated that He took a long time, leaving out the details mentioned above and substituting more figurative language.

He could have left out all of the indicators such as the qualifications of evening and morning with a number and still be speaking in a non poetic, narrative fashion. But he didn't. It's not like there's no way to express a "long time" in the hebrew language.

maybe you can answer a hypothetical for me-- assume for a minute that the OE view is correct (i.e the days were not literal). how would Ch 1 of genesis then read? I guess what i am saying is that perhaps a "poetic" version of what occurred would have been employed by God, through Moses.

I don't think that it would read like the version that God gave Moses, which didn't turn out at all like biblical poetry. That's the problem, the Old Earth view needs Genesis 1 to be poetry, to be able to interpret "yom" as long periods of time. But there's not a legitimate reason to read it as such.

Another quote from the Triablogue article that Rick C. posted. I really recommend this article. It can be found in it's context HERE

3. Genesis 1 and Comparative Literature of the Past. From a purely comparative approach of the literary structures, the language patterns, the syntax, the linguistic phenomena, the terminology, the sequential presentation of events in the creation account, Genesis 1 is not different from the rest of the book of Genesis or the Pentateuch for that matter.
Compared to the hymns in the Bible, the creation account is not a hymn; compared to the parables in the Bible, the creation account is not a parable; compared to the poetry in the Bible, the creation account is not a poem; compared to cultic liturgy, the creation account is not a cultic liturgy. Compared to various kinds of literary forms, the creation account is not a metaphor, a story, a parable, poetry, or the like.(underlines are mine)

P.S. I would love to hear some responses to the points I raised in my post on Nov 26, 2006 3:12 pm. (To anyone that wants to)

God bless bro,

[Guest]

I'd have to say I'm an 8+

I'm an engineer and patent attorney with a geologist father-in-law for whom this has been a huge stumbling block in his belief of the bible, so let's just say I've followed this topic pretty closely over the years.

Though I'm willing to believe in a young-earth view, I just can't believe anything I've read from the young earthers I've read (and I've seen my fair share). Their motives are generally suspect, and they just ignore too much or are disingenuous too often -- as long as there is a rational exegesis that supports an old earth view, I simply can't ignore reality. (by the way, the earth is not flat, either, and many folks used a selective exegesis to ignore that reality, too for a very long time).

[_Derek]

(by the way, the earth is not flat, either, and many folks used a selective exegesis to ignore that reality, too for a very long time).

There is no comparison, in my opinion, between a view of the earth as flat, and the young earth view.

The idea that the bible teaches a flat earth, is taken from a faulty exegesis of figurative language (four corners of the earth, etc.)

The literary genre employed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:8-11 is not figurative, but rather historical narrative, and should be interpreted as such.

It is not "selective exegesis" to merely consider the literary form utilized by the author, look at the immediate context of a passage, and compare scripture with scripture (the greater context) to form an interpretation. When one takes these steps with the above mentioned passages, you come up with young earth. (In my opinion of course). Or at least, you come away with God creating a mature creation in six days.

God bless,

[Guest]

Paidion, since Jesus was responding to a question about divorce, is it possible he could have been refering to creation of man and not the earth?

Yes, that is possible.

One question I have is this. It wasn't until the fourth day that God said "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years," So how long were the days before? Could evening and morning be just a poetic way of saying, in our vernacular,"The dawing and setting of an era(day) in creation"?

I don't know the answer to the sun being established on the fourth day. I have heard some say that his means that God made it visible from earth on that day.

I don't think "evening and morning" could be a poetic way of referring to the beginning and ending of an era. First note that "evening" comes first, rather than "morning". Wouldn't it be odd if the end of an era came before its beginning? I think the evening was the beginning of each "literal" day. Days are still regarded as beginning in the evening by practising Jews to this day. The Sabbath Day begins at sunset, and ends at the following sunset. Speaking of the Sabbath, the passage has already been quoted where the observance seems to have been based on the fact that God rested on the seventh day of creation. If this seventh day was a long period of time, why would the observance of the seventh literal day be derived from that?

I find it hard to be categorical with Genesis since there are a number of quesitons that are not easily answered. Like Cain's wife.

As a young man I worked briefly in a shipping establishment with another man who had just joined a religious group. He had previously been a stree tough. One day, he reported that he had met talked to some of his old street buddies that day. One of his former buddies had said:

"So! Bill A.....'s got religion! Tell me then, Bill... where did Cain get his wife?

"Now, Don, how am I supposed to answer a question like that?" Bill said to me. "So I told him," Bill continued, "'For all I know, maybe she fell out of the clear blue sky! Anyway, I'm not concerned about where Cain got his wife. I'm concerned about where I'm going to get my wife!'"

In any case, I think the Cain's wife question is a non-issue. If mankind began with a single couple, Adam and Eve, then the only possibility for increase in population is that their children married their siblings. There is nothing morally wrong with that. It has become "wrong" in people's mind because a taboo has been erected in order prevent weak or defective offspring in later generations.

I've heard that there are gaps in the genealogical records that seem to point to persons of significance rather than naming every individual. I've haven't check myself though. I've also heard that some genealogies in the bible differ as well, which would seem to back up this theory. Have you heard of this?

Yes, and I accept that there may have been a few gaps. But that would hardly account for millions of years instead of 6-10 thousand.

[Guest]

There is no comparison, in my opinion, between a view of the earth as flat, and the young earth view.

The comparison is to how staunchly and blindly a certain type of believer held to their literal interpretation.

The literary genre employed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:8-11 is not figurative, but rather historical narrative, and should be interpreted as such.

It is not "selective exegesis" to merely consider the literary form utilized by the author, look at the immediate context of a passage, and compare scripture with scripture (the greater context) to form an interpretation. When one takes these steps with the above mentioned passages, you come up with young earth. (In my opinion of course). Or at least, you come away with God creating a mature creation in six days.

While I agree this is a perfectly reasonable approach, it is not the only one (and one could disagree with immediate and greater context and hold to the same exegetical approach). My only point here is that there is more than one reasonable approach. My personal approach is that when there is more than one reasonable approach to a Scripture, and one conflicts with something observable or experiential, I tend towards the one that does not conflict with my observation or experience. I believe this is Steve's approach -- he has just stated that he personally hasn't learned anything that would make an OEC view more reasonable than a YEC. I have, and that is where I presently stand. I at least can admit to my scientist non-believer colleagues that the bible is not inconsistent with their life experience and scientific viewpoints on the age of the earth. They can certainly appreciate and respect my criticisms of their faulty evolutionary "science" when I don't deny what is so unmistakenly apparent to their basic observations of the known universe. Yes -- they most certainly are wrong on some of the science, and the possibility remains that they could be wrong on all of it, but that is not the most likely scenario in my opinion, and if it means that the Gospel is more approachable for thinking people who refuse to deny that 1+1=2 (from their perspective), then why fear such an interpretation? It's certainly a debatable point, and why let it be a stumbling block for people who have never heard past that point to see that our faith can be a reasonable one.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Thanks for your kind response,

I have heard some say that his means that God made it visible from earth on that day.

I just read that section of Genesis again and that does seem to be one possible explanation. I can also understand your hesitation to completely buy into it.

First note that "evening" comes first, rather than "morning".

That occured to me as well. I guess I'm just thinking that it could of been a Hebrew expression. They would likely have put evening first since they consider the evening the begining of a day.

If this seventh day was a long period of time, why would the observance of the seventh literal day be derived from that?

One possible explanation is that seven seems to have significance to God. So if he wanted them to mirror his seven days/ages of creation they wouldn't be able to do it if it was a long period of time. He used the days/time frame that he set up on day 4 of his creation for them to go by.

***SIDE NOTE***
I was just thinking as I'm typing this. I remember a few weeks before I became a Chrisitian a Christian girl asked me "Do you think the days mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 could be long periods of time and not just literal days? My brother doesn't think so, but I think they could, what do you think?". I have no idea why she asked me, not being a Christian and all. I just responded, having never actually read Genesis one, "Sure, I guess so".

Little did I know at that time that I would be delving into the issue myself one day....let alone reading the Bible!!

Thanks for helping me think this through everyone!

Blessings,
Steve

PS...Paidion, I noticed you lived in the same province as me and thought maybe I would contact you. Then I googled Chapple and realized you're over 1000 miles from me!

[Guest]

Reply to Derek,

Hello again, gtsy

You posted (with regard to the Tribalogue article by G.F. Hasel):

Thanks Rick. Good one.

The above article is a very good one dealing with why the bible is speaking of six literal days. This is what I feel is the biblical interpretation.

Yer welcome, Derek.

The thing of it is: I posted the link for all the info in it but don't agree with Hasel's conclusions or interpretation. I take a totally different angle on the topic. I have some other links which express my view, more or less, and have thought about writing & saving a short article just so I'd have it when needed. Since it might be a while till I get this article written, here's a link:

Mailing list discussion:
Re: "After Fundamentalism":
book by Bernard Ramm, 1983

I've never read this book. From articles and reviews I understand that Ramm explains Karl Barth's approach to the issue of "Genesis and science" (btw, Barth's views are mine too, more or less). Here's some excerpts:

"Another way of resolving the problem of a revelation written in a
prescientific period and yet retaining current authority is to make a
distinction between the literary genre of the passage and its
theological message. The genre is prescientific, the message is
theological...James Orr, the great Reformed theologian, followed a
similar strategy in his effort to harmonize the biblical record with
modern scientific knowledge. The Oriental genre is the vehicle
through which the revelation comes and is not binding; but the
theological message it conveys is binding." (Ramm B.L., 1983,
p152).

In addition, Barth makes a distinction between a passage's literary
genre and its message:

"(Barth's) first step is to let the Genesis record stand as it is, a product
of the prescientific world with its prescientific cosmologies. Without
question, the cosmological backdrop in Genesis 2 is different from the
backdrop in Genesis 1. Furthermore, between Genesis 1 and
Revelation 22 many other cosmologies are introduced. According to
Barth, the only sensible thing is to admit the multiplicity. In this
connection, Barth makes one of his rare comments on obscurantism.
He says it has never won a battle-so why fight over the many biblical
cosmologies?" (Ramm B.L., 1983, p153).

"Barth's second step is to tell us that this multiplicity should not
distress us. Christian theologians have used all kinds of cosmologies,
from Plato's famous Timaeus to Aristotle's, Ptolemy's, Newton's, and
Einstein's. Yet the diversity has not disturbed our theological
craftsmanship. There is no common cosmology behind Sacred
Scripture. There is no common cosmology behind Christian theology.
So therefore the cosmological issue should not be a big issue in the
Scriptures nor Christian theology. If one demands that the Scripture
be innocent in the matter of cosmology, then we could not write
theology until Einstein!" (Ramm 1983, p153)

"The third step is to assert that these texts (Genesis 1-3) are the
Word of God. The Word of God is "in, with, and under" the
cosmology. The cosmology is not the Word of God, but the message
within the cosmology is the Word of God. Revelation does not intend
to teach science, and therefore the Word of God is independent of the
cosmology. Therefore neither Holy Scripture or Christian theology is
involved in teaching cosmology. The theological teaching of the text
does not compete with modern cosmological explanations of the
universe." (Ramm 1983, p153).

I have more links & ideas but to be honest about it; I resolved this issue some time ago (or at least to my satisfaction at the time). Thus far, I haven't found any reason to change my view though I do follow current discussions on this topic some. I realize that for some people this topic is highly charged and don't want to get into any mean-spirited type of debate (which wouldn't a real debate in the first place). Please pardon me if I seem a little wary here...I used to post @ Beliefnet, lol, the bashing capitol of the internet!

Anyway.
Rick

[_Derek]

My only point here is that there is more than one reasonable approach.

I am yet to see an Old Earth interpretation that makes any sense exegetically. It's "see there's "day" (Ps. 90/II Peter 3:8) and here's "day" (Gen 1/Ex. 20). One says a "day" is like a thousand years, therefore "day"
in Genesis is speaking of long ages". That is not exegesis as far as I can tell. It's just barely "reasonable" since the word is in both passages. It is not the clear teaching of scripture.

Is is not obvious to the unbeliever who is stumbled by the bible's teaching on this subject, that this interpretation is merely trying to make the bible say what it does not?

God bless bro,

[Guest]

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



I am yet to see an Old Earth interpretation that makes any sense exegetically. It's "see there's "day" (Ps. 90/II Peter 3:8) and here's "day" (Gen 1/Ex. 20). One says a "day" is like a thousand years, therefore "day"
in Genesis is speaking of long ages". That is not exegesis as far as I can tell. It's just barely "reasonable" since the word is in both passages. It is not the clear teaching of scripture.



Derek, I think you're an amillenist which means you take the millenium to not be a literal thousand years yet when it comes to Moses writing Psalm 90 you believe it's irrelevant to Genesis. How do we know that it has nothing to do with creation days? It's written by the same inspired author , and this description of a "day" in God's eyes is inspired by God. Why would God inspire Moses to write such a passage?
I also would be interested to know if there are any scientists outside of YECs who believe the universe to be 6-11,000 years old.
If one takes a literal view of Genesis should'nt each day be 12 hours since evening to morning is literally 12 hours. I think "evening" means darkness and desolation and the phrase "morning" means the birth of some creative process.
I think Psalm 19 requires nature and the bible to agree and as far as i know outside of YECs no scientists believe the universe to be a few thousand years old.
In Proverbs 8.22 God describes his works as "old" "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old." Does "works of old" mean a few thousand years?
How do we get from 30,000 species on Noah's ark to 5,000,000 today , if it's just a few thousand years later? We would be seeing hyper-microevolution but we don't see it.