In Defense of OEC

[~candice~]

I am an OEC (old age creationist, day age theory) but you can call me a heretic for short if you like, LOL.

Recently I have been challenged to explain how I can support OEC without interpretting the bible using science. I merely believe that there are enough ambiguities in the creation account to warrent deep investigation. (The same goes with the flood account.) I read the word, see the alternatives (one of which could be OEC) and then find that science does indeed back this up.

Hypothetical: if there are two or more interpretations of genesis supported by scripture, and one has more weight of evidence in science than the other, can you use this to further reinforce your interpretation?

What is so wrong with this?

If you are OEC, how do you refute this? I believe that OEC should be refuted on it's biblical merits, and NOT merely by using the fact that YEC's believe that OEC's read the bible with the science in mind. Can't we get past this?

[~candice~]

...

This is what I think Genesis represents; God used terminology his audience would understand, including common concepts in eastern cosmology, to get His point across. And that point had nothing to do with how He created the universe and everything to do with WHY.

You would have to demonstrate textually that this was indeed the intent of God / the author. How is this possible? This is indeed the crux of the thread, that because no such intent is evident within the creation account itself, that most literal 7 day creationists simply wipe OEC off the table.

To extend his reasoning, if we believe that the Bible is true and we can show with a thousand proofs that the earth is really old, it is necessary that both the earth is old and the Scriptures are true. When interpretation and observation collide something has to give; either the interpretation is wrong, the revelation is wrong, or the observation is wrong. In the case of the age of the earth we know the observation is not wrong, that leaves two options on the table.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that 'we know the observation is wrong' because 'science' does contain some contradictory findings. And by that, I mean that I could probably scour the internet to find two scientists whose findings contradict each other. (I do not mean that true science findings contradict, this is not possible). So, while there are contradictory findings in modern science, another challenge is to determine which scientific finding is indeed true.

[Guest shiloh357]

When Galileo was challenged on his ideas of heliocentrism, that they were contrary to scripture, he replied that. . .

"The way in which I could quickly and surely demonstrate that Copernicus's position is not contrary to the Scriptures would be to show with a thousand proofs that it is true, and that the opposite cannot hold good; thus, since two truths cannot contradict each other, it is necessary that both his theory and the Scriptures are in agreement."

The only hitch with that was the Bible does not teach geocentrisism. Geocentrism was not a biblical teaching but as a secular view that had been read into the Bible The Bible makes no geocentric claims. Sometimes people insert doctrines into the Bible that are not really there. It called "Eisogesis" and often teachings are mistaken as being from the Bible when they are not.

[WolfBitn]

andy

That someone would judge a brother or sister's salvation based on whether they were oec or yec, i find unchristian and attrocious. May we all better learn not to judge one another so harshly.

I find that oec not only has science fact backing it (findings in the rock, not the human interpretations of said findings', it is entirely consistant inside scripture itself. I would think yec is much more hard put to come up with evidence backign their theory than those who hold to oec.

I think we have to deal with the giggle factor as well. Just try to convert an atheist using yec material, and youre guaranteed to be laughed out of the building. On the other hand talk oec with an atheist and you have his ear, nor can he very easily dispute the findings from scripture itself, in comparison with what we find in rock

I think we have 2 things written in stone that will never change its testimony... God's word, and scientific findings BACKING God's word

[~candice~]

That someone would judge a brother or sister's salvation based on whether they were oec or yec, i find unchristian and attrocious. May we all better learn not to judge one another so harshly.

...

I think we have 2 things written in stone that will never change its testimony... God's word, and scientific findings BACKING God's word

My salvation is not being questioned, but my method of biblical interpretation is (and perhaps, this is fair!). This is an issue for anyone who adopts the OEC position. How do you respond to the textual criticism question, wolf?

I do agree though, God's Word and God's Works are not in contradiction with each other.

[WolfBitn]

Andy i have criticism of my own concerning yec

Some people claim that God is able for instance, to create this world with the 'illusion' of age. In other words He created the fossils in the rock to confound those who thoguht they were wise.

I cant disagree with this MORE. I dont attribute deceptiveness to God... i dont attribute fraud with God... I dont think God would intentionally try to fool people when His desire is that all people be saved.

Then also, i dont see SOME of the criticism of oec being valid at all

For instance, we believe that carnevours were created to be carnevours. There has never been a time for instance, when the cat family werent formidably built for stalking and killing. Their very design proves that they were NOT created to be herbivours.

Plus yec in no way resembles the evidence we find in geology... fossiles and such, these things EXISTED... there HAVE been times of destruction and decimation of life on earth, and from what i see this is whats stated exactly in the hebrew. The 6 days of 'creation' fall into line exactly with what would naturally occur if this earth were struck by an asteroid, and we certainly have geological evidence of this happening on numerous occasions.

My experience, when discussing God with atheists... one of the first things they attack as having no credability at all is the thought that this earth is only 6000 years old.

Ecclesiates 1 may or may not be alluding to these cycles of life and destruciton

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

[~candice~]

Wolf, I think you may have mistaken the premise of this thread. It has nothing to do with science. I am discussing how people come up with OEC from scripture alone. Defense of OEC and criticism of YEC, through science, belongs to other threads .

Picture a conversation you are having with a YEC'er about the genesis account. They say to you "But Wolf, how do you get OEC out of the bible? The text does not convey ambiguity or appear to be figurative, so in the absence of these elements, we apply occam's razor and conclude that the text is indeed literal."

What is your response to this person? How do you defend OEC without the use of science?

[~candice~]

I think we have to deal with the giggle factor as well. Just try to convert an atheist using yec material, and youre guaranteed to be laughed out of the building. On the other hand talk oec with an atheist and you have his ear, nor can he very easily dispute the findings from scripture itself, in comparison with what we find in rock.

This is OT but I thought it warrented comment. I disagree with needing to deal with the giggle factor. The gospel is, and will always be, foolish to those who are perishing.

1 Cor 1:18 (NASB)

18For the word of the cross is (A)foolishness to (B)those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is ©the power of God.

Atheists giggle at Jesus raising from the dead, and yet this is the foundation of our faith. Paul says that if Christ did not raise again, our faith is in vain.

1 Cor 15 (NASB)

12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there (W)is no resurrection of the dead?

13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;

14and (X)if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He (Y)raised [a]Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;

17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; (Z)you are still in your sins.

We assess the truth of the word and what it says independent of what people will think of us. True biblical christianity will always be giggled at by the world.

I am happy to be a fool for Christ, laugh at me all you want.

[WolfBitn]

Andy youre right about not really having to worry about the giggle factor... i just feel that our position gives us more credability, and i do feel this is important. I dont think we hang our hat on anyhtinig but Christ and Him crucified, yet we are admonished to know how to answer people.

concerning scriptural evidence for yec folk though, I find the first 6 days of creation to be of great importance.

This is kinda long but i put this in another thread, explaining a possible alternate but correct reading of Genesis 1... sorry for the length

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

hayah is the Hebrew word translated 'was' in this instance

The primary and secondary meanings are...

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

a) (Qal)

1) -----

a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass

b) to come about, come to pass

2) to come into being, become

a) to arise, appear, come

b) to become

1) to become

2) to become like

3) to be instituted, be established

And the word translated 'void' is

bohuw, meaning void or empty

and 'without form' comes from the Hebrew tohuw, meaning ...

1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

a) formlessness (of primeval earth)

1) nothingness, empty space

b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)

c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

d) place of chaos

e) vanity

So what we have in genesis 1 is a declaration that God created the heavens and the earth and the EARTH BECAME a desolate wilderness... Is this an accurate estimation of what science finds in geology?

Yes indeed many tmies we see that since the earths existance, we have seen MANY cycles of life on this earth. Life and destruction, more life and more destruiction as we move from the Proterozoic to the precambrian and cambrian, to jurassic to now.

We find that life sprang form nowhere basicly in the cambrian IN HUGE numbers, and then later died out... we find another cycle going into the jurasic with the dinosaur, that was apparently killed off because of a meteor or astroid impact... and then we work our way eventually to man.

Now do i neccessarily agree with the dating systems? they are entirely inconsistant but lets entertain the possibility that it extends to the billions of years old. This cycle of life is still shown in genesis 1 and hinted at in Ecclesiastes where we see...

Ecclesiastes 1:4

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Now here in the hebrew the word for generation ALSO means ages or periods... one age comes, and it passes and another age comes ...

and the earth abides forever is properly translated...

1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

a) ancient time, long time (of past)

...and not neccessarily 'forever'

So thus far we see nothing in this creation story that goes against science at all.. but this is just the beginning of a LONG line of evidence, so be as patient as you would be for the EVEN LONGER nonevidence of string theory.

Thus far we are consistant with science, whereas nothing else on the table is because theres nothing else on the table as you agree

so lets check for further prediction and accuracy

Science notes these massive kill offs, periods of life and periods of death... thus far the bible does too, but lets go on with more geology, and more biblical account

Science also notes that there was a massive die off at the end of the jurassic. SOME people say this happened approximately 65 million years ago... but what was the CAUSE of this die off?

Concensus is that a MASSIVE meteor or a small asteroid impacted the earth in the central american region of the earth. Now... WHAT would have then happened and WHY this massive kill?

To put it simply the asteroid would have put MASSIVE amounts of debris into the atmosphere that theoreticly could have lasted hundreds of years... perhaps thousands. At any rate the sun was hidden from view, there was darkess on the earth, volcanoes also adding to the debris and darkness. massive die outs of plants and animal life. The suns rays unable to penetrate the thick gloom covering the earth

Well this is exactly what the bible tells us of the atmosphere in genesis 1

We see DARKNESS... no light... until God says 'LET THERE BE LIGHT'...

Now after a destruction such as we see ending the jurassic. we had MASSIVE debris, thick blackness, and EVENTUALLY the atmosphere began to clear... ONLY allowing some of the suns rays to shine through, and yet the sun and moon and stars would have remained invisable... diffused light, but enough to begin the process AGAIN...

THEN on day 2

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

WHAT is this saying? lolol

Very simply put... in the Hebrew there are 3 'heavens'. "Heaven is used interchangable to refer to our atmosphere, ourter space, and the home of God beyond what we know as the universe.

We will see on later days that this firmament called 'heaven' is our atmosphere

Note that the elements are still somewhat confused and we have water in the atmosphere that divides itself, some around the atmosphere (above it) and some below the atmosphere... oceans rivers lakes... Now this isnt to say ALL the water was in the atmosphere and divided but certainly it says SOME...

this means that OUTSIDE the atmosphere, a water vapor surrounded the earth... this would CERTAINLY be consistant with a huge impact in the central american gulf, sending debris, steam and PLENTY of water into the atmosphere.

Now, do we have any planetary models that fit this description??? We certainly do... venus has a outer layer of water surrounding its atmosphere as well... But do we have any evidence that this may have been the case here on earth?

We certianly do... we have fossile evidence indicating that at one time this entire planet surged into a semitropical paradise from pole to pole, with tropical vegetation growing thickly EVERYWHERE at the same time... This greenhouse effect grew with the clearing of the atmosphere, allowing more heat to hit the earth, and the warmth of the earth couldnt escape as it reached the water vapor, encapsulating it, spreading the warmth of the earth from pole to pole.

but wait... theres so much more

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So here we see the atmosphere being cleared, and the beginning of the greenhouse effect because of the water vapor also surrounding the atmosphere, beginning to take effect in bringing forth life... the grasses and herbs and shrubs and trees... just as we find in the fossile record

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

NOW... dont say 'well God created the sun on the 4th day? Because thats just the translation... THIS ISNT what the hebrew says. The word 'CREATED' here is not the same as 'created' an genesis 1:1... Gen 1:1 does indeed mean a new creation, but here "God made" REALLY should be interpreted as 'God made TO APPEAR"... SO WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS THE COMPLETE CLEARING of the atmosphere... further enhansing life and the greenhouse effect

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

and low and behold... LIFE springs from the seas... just as the fossile record indicates happened FIRST... AND SHOWS that BIRDS TOO were brought forth eventually form the sea... just as the fossile record indicates...

Note too that the birds fly in THE HEAVENS... this is an instance where heaven refers to our atmosphere

[Guest shiloh357]

My only theological beef with the OEC position (at this point) concerns the origin of death with respect to the animal kingdom. I don't believe the current cycle of life and death in the animal kingdom or among humans was hardwired into creation by God, but is the result of sin.