Young earth ?

[Guest ninhao]

 

shiloh357, on 11 Jan 2014 - 01:44 AM, said:

I acknowleged that there are some on this board promoting a very strange version of OEC.   

 

 

I’m dealing with your unsubstantiated claims.

 

1. Your position could potentially cause people to doubt the parts of the Bible that would lead them to heaven, so you are being a little short sighted.   The whole point behind challenging the Bible's authority in Genesis is to avoid accountability before a holy God.

 

2, Spurgeon's capitulation to Old Earthsim isn't the result of knowing the biblical languages or evangelicalism.  It is the result of compromise.  Everyone drops the ball somewhere.   The same holds for Spurgeon.   If you want to put your faith in a man's intellect, that's up to you;  as a Christian, I put my faith in the Word of God.

 

You haven’t shown as yet any evidence to support these claims.  As a Christian, I place my faith in Jesus my Lord Redeemer btw .

 

 

I have offered a range of 6,000-10,000 years ago based on how I am looking at the Scriptures.  

 

 

Ok. Let me rephrase.

 

The Bible describes God’s relationship with humans and His plans for us. It doesn’t make any claims of the method or that it was instigated 6-10,000 years ago. Your claim that it insists upon 6-10,000 years is false.

 

 

In order to hold an OEC view, you must accept what science says and then modify the text of Scripture to fit millions of years into the six days of creation.   That requires one to hold science in higher authority than the Scriptures where the subject of days of creation are concerned.   

 

 

We have seen that Mr Spurgeon used Genesis 1:2 in his sermon including Creation. How do you know he didn’t form his argument from this ?

 

 

  I didn’t say he ignorantly capitulated to science.  You are adding to what I said and assigning motives to what I said that are not true.   The fact is that is that anyone who is OEC must assert that the biblical claim that the earth was made in six literal days is not a reliable claim and that the Bible’s claim of six days is not accurate.  Thus science must be more accurate than the Bible if I am going to hold to the OEC view of the creation week actually being long epochs of millions or billions of years.

 

 

You are claiming he ignorantly capitulated to science because you suggest he didn’t give due diligence to Bible exegesis.

 

 

That he didn’t offer any exegesis is evidence that he did not arrive at this view exegetically.   You claimed that he based his view on the study of Scripture, but your quote didn’t really rise to the level of what claimed was there.   Frankly, you have over-sold what Spurgeon actually said.

 

 

I suggest sermons don’t always include exegesis and that Mr Spurgeon indeed will have given due diligence in this to form his view evidenced by his record.

 

My support for  him rests upon the knowledge that he was a great Bible scholar and knew all the Bible languages which indicates he didn’t ignorantly capitulate to science. You’re underselling Mr Spurgeon’s due diligence with no evidence.

 

 

What we are dealing with here bears absolutely no resemblance to the conflict that occurred between Galileo and the Church.  

 

 

Galileo was gagged by the Church and it used the Bible incorrectly as evidence. The same as you’re now doing.  It’s very much the same situation and I’m confident you will eventually change your position as the Church eventually did in Galileo’s time..

 

 

I have provided all that was needed.  If anything, you helped by providing quotes from Graham and Spurgeon that didn’t really live up to the hype you were making about them.   Neither one of them claimed what you claimed about them. 

Graham didn’t claim to be either an evolutionist nor a OECist.   He simply said that he felt it didn’t matter which one a person is.   Now I don’t agree with him on that, but that is what he said.  He did not affirm one side or the other.  So you are, again, over-selling and hyping up the claims made.

 

 

You haven’t provided any evidence that Mr Spurgeon or Mr Graham simply capitulated to science. They both allow OEC and since your claim is that they didn’t show due Bible exegesis diligence in forming their view you need to prove this.

 

  

Mentioning it one time in an obscure sermon doesn’t qualify as “preaching” it.   You are acting like it is a central part of his theology as if he went around “preaching” OEC.   He mentioned it ONE time. And even then it was more of side note and nothing that he cared to dwell on or expound upon.   If could find a series of sermons where he spent time and energy promoting an OEC view, then you could claim he was “preaching” it.  

 

 

He did preach it though didn’t he. Now I must accept your caveat of the number of times he preached it for it to be important? What we see from Mr Spurgeon and Mr Graham is that they haven’t elevated the timing of Creation upon a pedestal as you have done. They placed their emphasis upon the Gospel message where it belongs and where Jesus told us to dwell.

 

Can you show where this dilemma you’ve created is given any importance in the Bible ?

 

 

Their claims were not “exegetical” but were based on their own personal opinions.  Neither one of them made an exegetical argumen so there is no way for me to respond to their comments “exegetically.”

 

 

Are you claiming they haven’t made an exegetical argument ? This is the unproven accusation you have made so at this point I must assume they haven’t because you say so ?

I suggest you give them the benefit of the doubt until you prove otherwise instead of tearing them down simply to support your claims. But you do like tearing the Brethren down don’t you.

[Shar]

 

There are many verses throughout the Bible that can support an Old Earth.  The Hebrew word for Day, "Yom"  can mean time, year, age, always, evermore, etc. 

 

This has already bene acknowledged.  The problem is not about what the yom can mean.  The issue is what it means in Genesis 1.   We cannot arbitrarily assign meanings to a word in a given context. The question is how the author used the word, "yom" in Genesis 1 and what the author wants us to understand about that passage.

 

 

Hebrew is not a diverse language and duplicates are common, based on slight differences.  There can be duplicate meanings to certain words.  For instance, in Ze 14:9 talks about a day (an age) in time when Christ will rule. 

 

Yes, but that is a prophetic use of the word.  The millennial reign of Jesus which you refer to is known as "the day of the Lord."  But that is not really the same type of usage that we see in Genesis 1.   We cannot mix contexts and interpret the usage of a word in one context by how the same word is used elsewhere.  That is not how interpretation works.

 

 

Many believers in Christ believe in an Old Earth and can support it with many verses throughout the Bible. 

 

I would love to see those verses.   So far I have asked more than one person, more than once for those verses and so far, noone has been able or willing to provide them.

 

And, again, there are many believers who do not believe in an Old Earth and can support it with many verses.  As G-d said to Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?  Tell me if you know."  Nobody really can swear they truly know, completely.   Just nice to know why each believes what they do and respect them for their opinions.  I love diversity

 

This isn't a diversity issue. There is a right and wrong answer to this question.   So far, the OEC folks have made claims that their view is biblical but have provided nothing to that effect for review.   Job teaches that we can't know how God did it. but that is not in dispute.

 

We will have to ATD (agree to disagree) on some aspects of the interpretation regarding the Hebrew.  You referenced "olam" should be used in Ge. if referring to an old earth.  This word cannot be used for that.  It is an adjective.  However, "yom" can be used in Ge. 1. because it can be mean what I have stated in previous posts. 

 

If I go with the YE and believe in a literal 24 hour period for initial creation, I would have to ask how a day could be marked in 24 hours without the sun.  The sun is supposedly not created until the 4th day.  However, in the OE with the Ge. account taking G-d's efforts as a restoration from the result of chaos and judgment, then the sun already existed, time was marked and a 24 hour period existed.  The "let it be" would be "to bring forth into existence", not to make.

 

Interesting that the word "created" is not used for verses 2-20.  However, it is used for the creation of the earth, animals and man.  I will be glad to provide you the many verses that indicate there was a social system here on Earth before man and indications of an OE.  However, it will take me some time to gather all the references.  I promise I will post them, hopefully by this Sunday.

 

I would not presume that I have all knowledge and that this is definitely a right or wrong issue.  If it was intended to be black and white, there would not be such differences of opinions amongst believers and biblical scholars.  I believe how G-d did it is in the dispute.  Was the initial creation of earth literally in a 24 hour period?  Is the earth literally less than 10,000 years old?

[Spock]

That would probably not be fair. I'm a chiseled well defined exercise machine. You don't really want any, do you? Lol

 

My nickname has been Popeye considering the amplitude of my forearms so maybe we will be evenly matched

Uh-ohhhh, maybe I spoke too soon.

By the way, I love your avatar photo. Way cool. And, I have enjoyed reading all of your posts. You are a very gracious person with the patience of Job.

[gray wolf]

Just an observation. Creationism is an important subject but too often it eclipses the Gospel, in my opinion. Tempers rise and unkind and bellicose words are uttered by both sides. No cleverly constructed argument about a young earth is going to convince a scientist, but the Gospel will.  Offer them Christ and let God convict with truth.

[Spock]

no regrets = most certainly do because it is true - wincam

If I can be honest here, I believe when religious people totally disregard science because they THINK the Bible says something (when it doesn't) then all of Christianity suffers as a witness for Christ. I'm sure your intentions are noble, to defend God and his written word, but he doesn't need our defense to be made up.

It does not go against any verse in the Bible to believe as scientists say- Earth is billions of years old. There are even many devout believers who are scientists who have written books on this subject agreeing with the science- our solar system is old. Now from Gods perspective, 4.5 billion years is like a second, I'm sure.

Now man made in Gods image is another issue. Yes, that has been pretty recently, but those are two different issues to discuss. Trust me brother, don't fret if our planet is old. It all makes sense.

I am a Christian and maybe even a conservative Christian (depending on who is on my left and who on my right).  But I am in total agreement with you.  It does not rattle my faith one bit to think that the earth is very, very old.

 

The more I study Genesis (not just read and memorize, but study: i.e. look into the Hebrew, look into the culture etc. etc.) the more I am convinced that its author (and yes, AUTHOR) cared nothing, not one bit, about entering a debate that would not arise for another 3,000 years.  He had other fish to fry.  Put another way, if we could conjure up like Samuel the author of Moses, and present to him our debate, would  he say, "Ah yes, apologies for any obscurities, let me pencil in this footnote:  "Oh, by the way, I meant 6 literal 24/hr days."  Or rather, would he hold his weary head and lament, "Goodness! is THAT what you guys are arguing about?  You've missed the entire point!!"  I suspect the latter.

 

The question for me is this: do most 6-day creationists deny the Old Earth theory espoused by scientists simply because a detailed exegesis (study) of Genesis has led them to believe that it was 6 days?  If so, then this is purely an exegetical debate.

 

Or do at least some (certainly not all) do it for a much more subtle, and perhaps even unconscious reason--namely, the scary thought that, if this isn't literal, well then, is that? And what about that?! Eventually this train of thought will reach the heart of the gospel, Jesus Christ's death and resurrection--and at this we recoil in horror.  No, we say, it is safer (i.e. easier on my nerves) to stop that train of thinking from ever taking off, by simply asserting that the Genesis account is literal.

 

This is a method of reasoning which I cannot employ: and I don't need to.  There is no logical step to be made from the symbolic account of Genesis to the literal/historical account of the resurrection.  Nor does taking the 6 days symbolically (or thematically) require me to take the act of creation itself symbolically (i.e. God did not actually create the world).

Hi Conner. I hope you get your status changed from unbeliever to believer before the rapture takes place. I would hate for you to miss it. Lol

In all seriousness, find a mod (below on the home page is the list) and PM one of them. I'm sure they know what to do.

I enjoyed reading your post for many reasons, agreeing with me was only one of them. (Check in the mail)

Welcome aboard, matey!

[Guest shiloh357]

I’m dealing with your unsubstantiated claims.

 

1. Your position could potentially cause people to doubt the parts of the Bible that would lead them to heaven, so you are being a little short sighted.   The whole point behind challenging the Bible's authority in Genesis is to avoid accountability before a holy God.

 

2, Spurgeon's capitulation to Old Earthsim isn't the result of knowing the biblical languages or evangelicalism.  It is the result of compromise.  Everyone drops the ball somewhere.   The same holds for Spurgeon.   If you want to put your faith in a man's intellect, that's up to you;  as a Christian, I put my faith in the Word of God.

 

You haven’t shown as yet any evidence to support these claims.  As a Christian, I place my faith in Jesus my Lord Redeemer btw

 

 

Let’s deal with each of my claims.  But let me preface my comments that I am in no way questioning your faith in Jesus as your Savior and Lord.  

 

1.      It is true, the whole reason that unbelievers question the Bible’s authority in Genesis is to avoid accountability for their sin.  The entire secular evolution/science paradigm is focused like a laser in removing God from the equation altogether.  I am not saying that you or other OEC believers operate from that motivation.  What I am saying is that the OEC is rooted in a scientific paradigm that is itself rooted in challenging  the Bible’s, and by extension, God’s authority over their lives.

2.      Old earthism originated in age of reason when theologians  and philosophers were trying remove any supernatural elements from the Bible, including the notion that the earth was created in six days.   They were opposed to anything that had a supernatural tone.   The crossing of the Red Sea, the miracles and resurrection of Jesus were all put on the chopping block during the late 1700s.   The assumption of an old earth carried a lot of weight in Spurgeon’s day and it carries even more weight today than ever before.   But the point is that you can’t get it from the Bible.  

3.      The problem I have here is that you can’t, on the one hand, argue that YECers like me cannot claim the age of the earth as 6,000 –10,000 years from the Bible on the grounds that the Bible doesn’t tells us what the age of the earth is, and then turn around and tell me that the Bible contains verses that show an old earth.  You can’t have it both ways.

 

 

The Bible describes God’s relationship with humans and His plans for us. It doesn’t make any claims of the method or that it was instigated 6-10,000 years ago. Your claim that it insists upon 6-10,000 years is false.

 

But I didn’t claim that the Bible insists upon a an earth  age of 6,000-10,000 years.   I said that I presented the biblical evidence that I believe shows a young earth.   6,000-10,000 is just a rough estimate, not a fact nailed down by Scripture. 

 

 

We have seen that Mr Spurgeon used Genesis 1:2 in his sermon including Creation. How do you know he didn’t form his argument from this ?

 

Yes, but he didn’t exegete an old earth from that verse.   He simply said that it wasn’t clear how long ago, but that it was certainly millions of years.  That s not an exegetical argument.  That is the an argument from an assumption.   He wasn’t making a theological case for an old earth, at all in the quote you provided.

 

 

You are claiming he ignorantly capitulated to science because you suggest he didn’t give due diligence to Bible exegesis.

 

I didn’t use the word “ignorantly.”   You are adding a deragatory tone to my comment to paint my comment as being more antagonistic than I intended for it to be.   He did capitulate, like it or not and I am standing by that claim.  He did what many preachers often feel they need to do, unfortunately.

 

 

I suggest sermons don’t always include exegesis and that Mr Spurgeon indeed will have given due diligence in this to form his view evidenced by his record.

 

My support for  him rests upon the knowledge that he was a great Bible scholar and knew all the Bible languages which indicates he didn’t ignorantly capitulate to science. You’re underselling Mr Spurgeon’s due diligence with no evidence.

 

Well, your support is a bit misplaced because Charles Spurgeon never earned a university degree.  He did not know all of the biblical languages.  He never studied Hebrew or Aramaic and was only briefly tutored in Greek.  He knew some Latin and was well studied in Puritan theology, natural history (where he would have gotten his old earth views) and Victorian literature.

 

He was not known for his education, but for his prolific preaching style.  Unfortunately for us, he was born just on the cusp of a world where recording technology has being developed and so none of his sermons were ever recorded audibly. http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/sermons/chsbio.html

 

 

But you are simply making things up when you claim he was knowledgeable.  You should checked your facts.

 

 

Galileo was gagged by the Church and it used the Bible incorrectly as evidence. The same as you’re now doing.

 

How am I using the Bible incorrectly to support an YEC view?

 

 

You haven’t provided any evidence that Mr Spurgeon or Mr Graham simply capitulated to science.

 

I didn’t have to.  You provided the evidence from your quote which you misrepreented.   I have also shown that you have misrepresented Spurgeon’s educational background and knowledge and I have also shown evidence that he was a studier of natural history (earth science) and it is likely that he got his views of an old earth from his studies of natural science.

 

 

He did preach it though didn’t he.

 

No, he mentioned it in passing.  He didn’t preach it as a biblical truth.  He simply mentioned it and moved on.   It was not a major point in sermon.  That doesn’t qualify as “preaching” OEC.

 

 

 

Are you claiming they haven’t made an exegetical argument ?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

This is the unproven accusation you have made so at this point I must assume they haven’t because you say so ?

 

Not because I say so, but because neither one of them made an exegetical claim in the quotes you provided.   Niether Spurgeon appealed to Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, neither appealed to any form literary analysis, neither of them appealed to historical/cultural context, neither of them  appeal to one area of hermeneutic or the exegetical process as justification for an OEC view.

 

 

I suggest you give them the benefit of the doubt until you prove otherwise instead of tearing them down simply to support your claims.

 

I don’t have to give the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt that there is no exegetical argument presneted by either of them, unless you can drum up another quote from either man.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

We will have to ATD (agree to disagree) on some aspects of the interpretation regarding the Hebrew.  You referenced "olam" should be used in Ge. if referring to an old earth.  This word cannot be used for that.  It is an adjective.  However, "yom" can be used in Ge. 1. because it can be mean what I have stated in previous posts. 

 

 

You are wrong, Shar.   Olam is a masculine noun in Hebrew, not an adjective. You obviously don't know Hebrew very well.  I speak and read it and I am well qualified to discuss the language.  

 

So far you are batting zero.  You were wrong about both the meaning of the word "olam" and you are wrong about its gender. 

 

If I go with the YE and believe in a literal 24 hour period for initial creation, I would have to ask how a day could be marked in 24 hours without the sun.  The sun is supposedly not created until the 4th day.  However, in the OE with the Ge. account taking G-d's efforts as a restoration from the result of chaos and judgment, then the sun already existed, time was marked and a 24 hour period existed.  The "let it be" would be "to bring forth into existence", not to make.

 

Why is not having a sun a problem for an all-knowing God to calculate a 24-hour day?  You have to remember that there was evening and morning, which qualifies the word "day."  That indicates that day and night were occurring even if the sun didn't exist.   How did God create the plant life prior to the sun when we know that the sun is the catalyst for photosynthesis?   The answer is that God sustained the plant life Himself.  God himself was the light needed for both day and night and for plant life prior to the creation of the sun.  So it really isn't a problem.

 

 

I would not presume that I have all knowledge and that this is definitely a right or wrong issue.  If it was intended to be black and white, there would not be such differences of opinions amongst believers and biblical scholars.

 

Not so.  Biblical scholars disagree over much of what is black and white in the Bible.  Biblical scholars are even divided over the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.  Many scholars don't believe that the Exodus or the crossing of the Red Sea are real historical events.  If you assume that scholars are only divided over gray areas, you are sadly mistaken

[Spock]

Just an observation. Creationism is an important subject but too often it eclipses the Gospel, in my opinion. Tempers rise and unkind and bellicose words are uttered by both sides. No cleverly constructed argument about a young earth is going to convince a scientist, but the Gospel will.  Offer them Christ and let God convict with truth.

Hi grey (I still miss the wolf),

Would you mind clearing this up for me-It sounded like you were saying that a scientist who is a nonbeliever won't be won over to Christ by some cleverly constructed young earth argument. Rather, win them over with the gospel instead.

If that was your intention, then I fully agree. I doubt any nonbeliever will come to Christ merely by accepting the young earth theory on its own.

Just curious, did you mean to add anything else to this message? (This discussion is mainly if not all amongst believers.)

Thanks,

Spock

[Shar]

 

 

We will have to ATD (agree to disagree) on some aspects of the interpretation regarding the Hebrew.  You referenced "olam" should be used in Ge. if referring to an old earth.  This word cannot be used for that.  It is an adjective.  However, "yom" can be used in Ge. 1. because it can be mean what I have stated in previous posts. 

 

 

You are wrong, Shar.   Olam is a masculine noun in Hebrew, not an adjective. You obviously don't know Hebrew very well.  I speak and read it and I am well qualified to discuss the language.  

 

So far you are batting zero.  You were wrong about both the meaning of the word "olam" and you are wrong about its gender. 

 

If I go with the YE and believe in a literal 24 hour period for initial creation, I would have to ask how a day could be marked in 24 hours without the sun.  The sun is supposedly not created until the 4th day.  However, in the OE with the Ge. account taking G-d's efforts as a restoration from the result of chaos and judgment, then the sun already existed, time was marked and a 24 hour period existed.  The "let it be" would be "to bring forth into existence", not to make.

 

Why is not having a sun a problem for an all-knowing God to calculate a 24-hour day?  You have to remember that there was evening and morning, which qualifies the word "day."  That indicates that day and night were occurring even if the sun didn't exist.   How did God create the plant life prior to the sun when we know that the sun is the catalyst for photosynthesis?   The answer is that God sustained the plant life Himself.  God himself was the light needed for both day and night and for plant life prior to the creation of the sun.  So it really isn't a problem.

 

 

I would not presume that I have all knowledge and that this is definitely a right or wrong issue.  If it was intended to be black and white, there would not be such differences of opinions amongst believers and biblical scholars.

 

Not so.  Biblical scholars disagree over much of what is black and white in the Bible.  Biblical scholars are even divided over the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.  Many scholars don't believe that the Exodus or the crossing of the Red Sea are real historical events.  If you assume that scholars are only divided over gray areas, you are sadly mistaken

 

The verse you supplied in Ge. 3:22 for "olam", meaning forever, is not used as a noun.  It is frequently used as an adjective, meaning always, continually, eternal.  If you want to use it as a noun, an example would be "ha'olam"  the Universe.  I may be batting zero with you, but you denoting yourself qualified in Hebrew is really questionable to me.

 

A evening and a morning cannot exist without the Sun.  Remember, G-d said he set these in the sky to mark the seasons, days and years.  From His own mouth, you need the Sun to mark a day.

 

Light existed before the Sun and that is how the vegetation germinated.  Ge.1:3.

 

I did not say scholars are only divided over gray matters.  I stated that if the creation account was so black and white, there would not be such differences in the account.  Room for discussion.

 

Now, Shiloh.  I have been nothing but professional in my presentation of information to you.  I have always tried to be respectful to all. However, you come across not only to me, but to many others, who have confronted you on this forum as sometimes rude and arrogant.  I ask you to consider your brothers and sisters in the L-rd with more respect and do all we can to keep the peace.  We do not want to cause strife.  Let's discuss without passion that becomes inflammatory.

 

I want you to know.  I do enjoy your input on this forum.

[Guest shiloh357]

The verse you supplied in Ge. 3:22 for "olam", meaning forever, is not used as a noun.  It is frequently used as an adjective, meaning always, continually, eternal.  If you want to use it as a noun, an example would be "ha'olam"  the Universe.  I may be batting zero with you, but you denoting yourself qualified in Hebrew is really questionable to me.

 

Sorry Shar, but you are still very wrong and evidently are not skilled at all in Hebrew.   Olam is never an adjective. Olam is a masculine noun.   There may be words in English translated from Olam that are adjectives, but olam has only ever been used in Hebrew as a noun.  

 

A evening and a morning cannot exist without the Sun. 

 

 

But evening and morning happened for three days prior to the sun. So how could they not exist without the sun?

 

 

 

Remember, G-d said he set these in the sky to mark the seasons, days and years.  From His own mouth, you need the Sun to mark a day.

 

I do.  But God doesn't. 

 

 

Light existed before the Sun and that is how the vegetation germinated.  Ge.1:3.

 

Yes, I made the point already.

 

I did not say scholars are only divided over gray matters.  I stated that if the creation account was so black and white, there would not be such differences in the account.  Room for discussion.

 

I make the case that it is a black and white issue.  The earth is either old or young.  The Biblical evidence speaks to a young earth.

 

 

Now, Shiloh.  I have been nothing but professional in my presentation of information to you.  I have always tried to be respectful to all. However, you come across not only to me, but to many others, who have confronted you on this forum as sometimes rude and arrogant.  I ask you to consider your brothers and sisters in the L-rd with more respect and do all we can to keep the peace.  We do not want to cause strife.  Let's discuss without passion that becomes inflammatory.

 

I am not being inflammatory at all.  I simply know what I am talking about and I am sticking by my statmements. The fact that I won't compromise on the truth makes me hard to get along with and that is fine with me.  I am not has thin skinned as some others are.

 

I want you to know.  I do enjoy your input on this forum.

 

I enjoy speaking with you as well, and welcome to the boards.