Young earth ?

[Guest shiloh357]

You and I aren’t discussing 24 hour day 6 day creation. OEC doesn’t necessarily imply this as you well know and acknowledged in your last post to me..

 

I acknowleged that there are some on this board promoting a very strange version of OEC.   But the mainstream and most oft-made claims by OEC proponents is that they are in agreement with the scientific view that the earth is billions of years old and hold to the view that the days of creation were not six literal days, but were long epochs of time.

 

That is the OEC theory I am prepared to deal with.  I am not prepared for some of the rather homespun versions of OEC that appear to be the invention of individual posters and do not reflect mainstream OEC theories.

 

 

The Bible describes God’s relationship with humans and His plans for us. It doesn’t make any claims of the method or the exact time the creation was performed. Your claims that it does are false

 

 

First I didn’t make any claims to the method.  So I cannot be faulted for a claim I didn’t make.  Secondly, I have already demonstrated from Scripture using genealogical records and the plain text of Genesis 1 why I believe the Bible supports a young earth.   I didn’t claim that the Bible tells us the exact time the creation was performed.  I have offered a range of 6,000-10,000 years ago based on how I am looking at the Scriptures.   You are overstating my claims and attributing two claims to me that I didn’t make.  

 

In truth, it is your claims against me that are false.  You seem to be unable to correctly frame what I said, either that or you are unwilling to do so. 

 

 

 

 

 

To gain Mr Spurgeon’s exegesis of Genesis 1:2 you will need to speak to him. I accept that his superior intellect, his gift for exegesis, and his knowledge of all Bible languages allows him the courtesy of you accepting he has allowed OEC with due diligence. You however make the spurious claim he Biblical ignorantly capitulated to science.

 

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.    You can’t get OEC purely from the text of the Bible alone.  So you have to go outside the Bible to get it.   That is what OECer’s do. 

 

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 already acknowledged OEC may involve a long period of time before adamic preparation. Why are you now continuing with the 6 x 24 hour days whine?

 

At this time I’m not certain I can trust your integrity.

 

No, I simply acknowleged that there are people on this board who hold to that view.   Why is holding to 6 literal days “whining?”    There is nothing dishonest in anything I have said.

 

Mr Spurgeon may indeed have an exegetical synopsis of Genesis 1:2 and his reasons for accepting OEC but this isn’t the issue. He quoted Genesis 1:2 in his sermon including OEC and we know of his great intellect and brilliant Bible mind. We also know of his fantastic evangelical record and yet you claim OEC may hinder the unbeliever in accepting their sin condition.  Possibly you should allow your Brother Spurgeon the benefit of the doubt that he did exercise exegetical diligence in this matter considering his record, and not slander him.

 

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.

 

 

The science of the day, in geocentric acceptance days, agreed with the Church and today we see the Church( I've returned to clarify it is a dwindling portion of the Church as in geocentric times ) disagrees with the scientific Earth age question. In Galileo’s time the Church was anti heliocentric and so was science. The Church however argued against the new and correct model, using scripture inappropriately, in the same manner you are now doing in regard to OEC. You shouldn’t be arguing against science using scripture you should be arguing against unbelief. You are stepping outside of your mandate.

 

What we are dealing with here bears absolutely no resemblance to the conflict that occurred between Galileo and the Church.   Galileo PROVED that the science of the day was wrong.  He didn’t simply have a theory.  He proved with science.   He wasn’t disproving the Bible because the Bible makes no geocentric claims.   In Galileo’s day, the Church was the government.  It controlled the economy, politics, religion, science, education and law enforement.  It also controlled the military and made laws and carried  out trials and other judicial proceedings and had the power to excute law breakers.   The “church” of that day was a far different organization than the institution we know of today that is purelly ecclesiastical in nature.  Back then the Church controlled everything and everyone.   It was probably more secular than it was relgious.  

 

What we are dealing with here is not like that situation at all.  

 

 

You constantly throw up accusations against the Brethren and then fail to provide evidence.

 

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.

 

  

 

Now I must accept your definition of how Mr Spurgeon and Mr Graham  allowed OEC ? Mr Spurgeon included his allowance of OEC in sermon 30 and the fact stands that they both accepted OEC and they are the most prolific evangelists of the modern era.

 

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.  

 

You’ve accused Mr Surgeon and Mr Graham of capitulating to science without giving due exegetical diligence.

 

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.”

 

You made the claim that Mr Graham and Mr Spurgeon capitulated to science and that their acceptance of OEC may hinder the unbeliever in accepting their sin condition.

I didn’t claim that their acceptance of OEC may hindre unbelievers from accepting their sin condition.    So no, I don’t retract a statement I didn’t make.   You are assigning things to me that I did not say.

[Shar]

 

Actually, Olam means "King of the Universe; such as, "Baruch ata, ADONAI Eloheinu, Malekh ha'Olam", meaning "Blessed art thou, O L-rd, our G-d, King of the Universe" 

 

No, that is wrong.   "Olam" has several different meanings depending on context (Universe, world, forever, eternity and is often used to denate very long periods of time.  The word "Melekh" is the word for king.    Melekh haolam is a phrase that is often rendered as "King of the universe."  

 

However,  " yom" can mean more than a 24 hour period, depending on how it is used.  Literally, a day, sunset to sunrise or figuratively, a space of time, age, required season, perpetually, old, etc.  Really depends on how it is being used.  Not always as a 24 hour period.  I believe in these passages it refers to the 24 hour period, but only as a recreation as a result of chaos and rebellion, not as the initial creation.

 

What we are interested in is how itis used in Genesis 1.   Hebrew is a language with only about 8,700 words and so many of the words play double duty, triple duty and so on.  The Hebrew word "echad" has over 18 different possible usages.   So we are interested not in how yom is used everywhere else.   The focus of this thread is the use of yom in Genesis 1.

 

There is no evidence that this is a recreation and the Hebrew grammar will not allow for this to be a recreation in Genesis 1. 

 

 

Please give verses in the Bible that show "olam" used as you have indicated.  Yes, it means universe, but I used the prayer as an example.  I can see where the way I stated it could be confusing.  I need examples of verses from you, however.  Thanks

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Please give verses in the Bible that show "olam" used as you have indicated.  Yes, it means universe, but I used the prayer as an example.  I can see where the way I stated it could be confusing.  I need examples of verses from you, however.  Thanks

 

Gen. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (olam)

 

Gen. 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. (olam)

 

Gen. 43:9 I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever:(olam)

 

The prayer you cited uses l'olam to refer to universe. Olam is never used to mean, "king."    "King of the universe is a two-word phrase in Hebrew, "Melekh haolam."

[LookingForAnswers]

Here you go again Shiloh...repeating a lie hoping people will start to belive it.

 

 

 

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.    You can’t get OEC purely from the text of the Bible alone.  So you have to go outside the Bible to get it.   That is what OECer’s do.

 

This is false, and you know it to be false so you are doing this on purpose, there is a word for that.

[Guest shiloh357]

Here you go again Shiloh...repeating a lie hoping people will start to belive it.

 

 

 

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.    You can’t get OEC purely from the text of the Bible alone.  So you have to go outside the Bible to get it.   That is what OECer’s do.

 

This is false, and you know it to be false so you are doing this on purpose, there is a word for that.

 

If my claim is false, then provide the Scriptures that YOU  said exist that demonstrate an old earth.  I have already asked you earlier today to provide me with those texts.   If what I am saying is false, then you should have no problem mounting a biblical defense for an old earth.

 

You accuse me of making this personal, but you are the one accusing me of lying and being deceptive. 

[a-seeker]

 

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).

[Shar]

 

 

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).

 

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

[LookingForAnswers]

 

Here you go again Shiloh...repeating a lie hoping people will start to belive it.

 

 

 

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.    You can’t get OEC purely from the text of the Bible alone.  So you have to go outside the Bible to get it.   That is what OECer’s do.

 

This is false, and you know it to be false so you are doing this on purpose, there is a word for that.

 

If my claim is false, then provide the Scriptures that YOU  said exist that demonstrate an old earth.  I have already asked you earlier today to provide me with those texts.   If what I am saying is false, then you should have no problem mounting a biblical defense for an old earth.

 

You accuse me of making this personal, but you are the one accusing me of lying and being deceptive. 

 

 

I will provide you with the passage, as many other have already.  I am at work now and will do so this evening and weekend.  You yourself admited the idea of an old earth predated "modern" science and yet you say we do it beause of science.  Questions about the meaning of the "days" of creation go back to the time of Jesus or maybe before.  The early church fathers in the 1st century wrote about this with questions about the meaning of the passages. It was not because of science then and for many of us it is not today.  i have told you this multiple time and you just ignore me or assume that I am lying, which is it?

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Here you go again Shiloh...repeating a lie hoping people will start to belive it.

 

 

 

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.    You can’t get OEC purely from the text of the Bible alone.  So you have to go outside the Bible to get it.   That is what OECer’s do.

 

This is false, and you know it to be false so you are doing this on purpose, there is a word for that.

 

If my claim is false, then provide the Scriptures that YOU  said exist that demonstrate an old earth.  I have already asked you earlier today to provide me with those texts.   If what I am saying is false, then you should have no problem mounting a biblical defense for an old earth.

 

You accuse me of making this personal, but you are the one accusing me of lying and being deceptive. 

 

 

I will provide you with the passage, as many other have already.  I am at work now and will do so this evening and weekend. 

I am looking forward to what you present.  No one has provided any verses whatsoever to support OEC.  I have asked other people, not just you, for those verss and so far, I have recieved nothing.  So I am not sure you it is you think has provided what I am asking for.

 

 

You yourself admited the idea of an old earth predated "modern" science and yet you say we do it beause of science. 

 

Yes, the assumption that the earth is old predates modern science, but it was not based on the Bible.   It happened during the "Age of Reason" when theologians and philosiphers were trying to "demythologize" the Bible and remove anything that didn't agree with how they viewed the role of "reason." 

 

That assumption was rooted in an attempt cut away the supernatural aspects of the Bible.  Modern science is trying to defend and prove that assumption.  In our day and age, it is modern science that asserts that the earth is over four billions years old.  The assumption of an old earth was never rooted in a biblical paradigm. 

 

OEC aligns itself with the scientific claim of an old earth, but I believe that proponents of that view fail to take into account that one very important reason that science claims the earth is billions of years old is not because C14 dating or radioisotopes reveal an old earth, but because they NEED an old earth to accomodate the process of evolution.   The more we learn about the complexity of biological life on earth, the more time we need for evolution to occur.   I would argue that years down the road our grandchildren's children will be taught that the earth is even older than many are claiming today once more is learned about the amazing complexity of life on a cellular, atomic and molecular level.

 

Questions about the meaning of the "days" of creation go back to the time of Jesus or maybe before.  The early church fathers in the 1st century wrote about this with questions about the meaning of the passages. It was not because of science then and for many of us it is not today.  i have told you this multiple time and you just ignore me or assume that I am lying, which is it?

 

I can't speak to your personal motives and I have responded to everything you have presented.  I don't recall you presenting anything about the questions of the length of days in Genesis during the first century or earlier.   If you did present it was in a thread I did not read or a post I have inadvertantly missed.    But you have asserted multiple times that there are verses in the Bible that speak to an old earth view, so I am eagerly awaitng to see those verses.