OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[Guest shiloh357]

I will put together a small outline backing my argument....note, it is not primarily for you; perhaps not even remotely.  We both know nothing will convince you of anything that might be used to support OE or non-absolutely-literal reading of Scripture.

 

I look forward to seeing the outline.    Btw, there is no such thing as non-absolutely-literal reading of Scripture.   There is either literal or nonliteral.   You are approaching literal from a subjective vantage point, which is the opposite of the nature of literalism.    To take the Bible "literally" means to let the author speak for himself.  The whole point of exegesis is to lead out the literal meaning of the text.   Nonliteralism tends to read one's personal views into the text and the reader imposes his own preconceptions onto it to mold the text around what he is prepared to accept, which is what I see you doing.

 

 

 

 

I have no intention of so using this (I could care less how old the earth is). 

 

Could've fooled me.

 

But since it could be used, I know you are already in disagreement. Rather, it will be for those who are not yet convinced, and those tired of the science/Scripture debate, and those who would like to know what scholarship is discovering in these ancient texts.

 

Well, thank you for your noble intentions.  I am interested not just in what the scholars say, but precisely who these scholars are.  I assume that since you can source them as to their comments and beliefs, you are also privy to their identity, as well.  I would like to know who they are and if possible their field of expertise.

 

I will attempt to put together the bibliography but that means going through all my books and syllabi which is tedious.  And no doubt (this is not conjecture or "straw man", it is you're inevitable counterattack) you will denigrate each one for some reason (He's a Catholic; or he supports gays; or he eats his brats with ketchup).  But I will do it all the same to show I am not alone.

 

Well, it would be helpful then if you would limit your scholarship to those scholars who don't promote or support unbiblical things.  I will say at the outset that scholars who promote homosexuality or whoe attempt to sanctify such abominations, should be rejected as genuine Christian scholars.

 

I have learned over the years that there is a difference between "Bible scholars" and "Christian scholars."   There are people who have made a career out of studying the Bible and don't believe a word of it.   It is to them no different than studying Greek mythology.

 

I would caution you that posting the works of unbelieving Bible scholars will do nothing to support your position on a Christian messageboard.

[Shar]

 

 

 

In John 1:1, which I have already referenced numerous times,  "In the beginning".  This Greek phrase means, the very first order, first in place, time, order.  We see in the verse that "in the beginning" was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d.  He was with G-d "in the beginning".  Through him all things were made.

 

Now go to Ge. 1:1.  "In the beginning".  The Hebrew phrase, means the same thing...the very first order, first in time, place, order.  We see in this verse G-d created the heavens and the earth.  This is not an introductory phrase to what follows.  It is a statement that He created from the beginning.  The beginning was the Word.  He created the heavens.  The heavens are His abode, the celestial bodies and the sky.

 

Now go to He. 1:10  "In the beginning" - the same phrase.  "In the beginning, O L-rd, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."  By the way, "foundations of the earth" is the building block.  You must lay a foundation before you can build on it.

 

G-d has been creating, since "in the beginning.  He began by laying the foundations of the earth.  If you think He has only been creating the heavens and the earth over the last 10,000 years, then we have to conclude G-d is equally as young.  Definitely not so.  He is the Ancient of Days - The Ancient of All Eternity.

In the beginning,  (Heb. B'reishis) simply means at the first.  The notion that God has only been around since He began creating is simply not true.   There is no way anyone can argue that based, "in the beginning" that it means that God began creating millions or billions of years ago.  That is simply a stretch and a leap in logic that is unwarranted. 

 

The fact is that we cannot know what God did in the eternal past before the earth was formed.  The Bible doesn't provide us with that information.   Trying to fill in the gaps with ridiculous assumptions that God was creating other worlds or spent the entire dateless past creating our earth or whatever is a fool's errand.  It is a pointless endeavor that leads nowhere.  It is just speculation. 

 

You need to stop letting your theology drive your interpretation.   You need to stop assuming what you are trying prove.  It only leads a person in circles.

I disagree with you again Shiloh. I think shar has stated this position quite well with authority to support it.

 

Anybody can string verses together like lights on a Christmas tree and make the Bible say anything they want.   The argument that God has been creating since the beginning has no basis in fact and is not actually stated in Scripture.  You will cliing to anyone who even looks like the support your pre-adamite fairytales. 

 

It's obvious you do not agree and have stated such. Why can't you agree to disagree and let the people reading decide for themselves who they believe to be right or wrong? After all, our place is merely to plant the seeds. If you believe your position is God inspired, trust God to give the increase

 

I never said my position is "God inspired."   I don't plan on letting the pre-adamite "seeds" being planted to take root, as it is false doctrine and does not reflect an authentic biblical worldview.

 

One of the best ways to interpret Scripture is through other Scripture.  You cannot read your Bible like it is the latest novel off the New York Best Seller's list.  If you would dig through the Scriptures, as if searching for treasure, you may find additional exegesis.  The constant roar that anyone who does not agree is spreading false doctrine is a primitive debate tactic to swing the debate in your favor, when really and often, you cannot respond with an adequate answer. 

[Guest shiloh357]

One of the best ways to interpret Scripture is through other Scripture.  You cannot read your Bible like it is the latest novel off the New York Best Seller's list.  If you would dig through the Scriptures, as if searching for treasure, you may find additional exegesis.  The constant roar that anyone who does not agree is spreading false doctrine is a primitive debate tactic to swing the debate in your favor, when really and often, you cannot respond with an adequate answer. 

 

 

My argument is not that if you disagree with me you are spreading false doctrine.   My argument is that the Gap Theory is a false doctrine.  It impugns God's character and really borders on heresy, though I doubt it completely rises to the level of heresy.

 

There is a differnce between using Scripture to interpreet Scripture and strining verses together to support a theory that is completely false at the outset.  You are trying to use Scripture in a way that justifies a false teaching, and that is an illegitimate use of the texts.

[Shar]

 

One of the best ways to interpret Scripture is through other Scripture.  You cannot read your Bible like it is the latest novel off the New York Best Seller's list.  If you would dig through the Scriptures, as if searching for treasure, you may find additional exegesis.  The constant roar that anyone who does not agree is spreading false doctrine is a primitive debate tactic to swing the debate in your favor, when really and often, you cannot respond with an adequate answer. 

 

 

My argument is not that if you disagree with me you are spreading false doctrine.   My argument is that the Gap Theory is a false doctrine.  It impugns God's character and really borders on heresy, though I doubt it completely rises to the level of heresy.

 

There is a differnce between using Scripture to interpreet Scripture and strining verses together to support a theory that is completely false at the outset.  You are trying to use Scripture in a way that justifies a false teaching, and that is an illegitimate use of the texts.

 

That is the whole issue, you cannot absolutely prove that it is false.  The dateless past was not something we just made up.  It has existed in the midrash and writings of rabbis and sages.  There are Bible verses to support that eternity.  Your passion rules and controls you.  You have pronounced judgment and you believe your judgment is totally correct and the only one G-d approved.

 

The opposite can be argued that you and YEC limits the majesty of the Eternal Creator.  You and YEC have him not doing much except over the past 10,000 years.  You are also guilty of using scripture in a way that justifies the inadequate 1972 YEC postulation.  An equally illegitimate use of texts.  See, Shiloh, the point is, no one knows for absolute certain.  To say so would be proud...and G-d resists the proud! 

[Guest]

The fact is that we cannot know what God did in the eternal past before the earth was formed.  The Bible doesn't provide us with that information.   Trying to fill in the gaps with ridiculous assumptions that God was creating other worlds or spent the entire dateless past creating our earth or whatever is a fool's errand.  It is a pointless endeavor that leads nowhere.  It is just speculation. 

 

You need to stop letting your theology drive your interpretation.   You need to stop assuming what you are trying prove.  It only leads a person in circles.

 

~

 

The

 

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 2 Timothy 2:24

 

Man

 

To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. Titus 3:2

 

Of God

 

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy James 3:12

 

~

 

The Truth

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

 

About Creation

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

And About The Evil Speculations Of Science

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

~

 

He Is Risen

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Spock]

One of the best ways to interpret Scripture is through other Scripture.  You cannot read your Bible like it is the latest novel off the New York Best Seller's list.  If you would dig through the Scriptures, as if searching for treasure, you may find additional exegesis.  The constant roar that anyone who does not agree is spreading false doctrine is a primitive debate tactic to swing the debate in your favor, when really and often, you cannot respond with an adequate answer.

My argument is not that if you disagree with me you are spreading false doctrine.   My argument is that the Gap Theory is a false doctrine.  It impugns God's character and really borders on heresy, though I doubt it completely rises to the level of heresy.

 

There is a differnce between using Scripture to interpreet Scripture and strining verses together to support a theory that is completely false at the outset.  You are trying to use Scripture in a way that justifies a false teaching, and that is an illegitimate use of the texts.

Shiloh, I see you have learned the art of using key words to arouse passion from the masses- false doctrine, God's character, heresy ( that was a good one), illegitimate (people react to this word no matter what setting).

Hard to believe so many godly men are guilty of all this. Well, at least in your eyes.

Oh, what was that adjective you used to describe what shar has been sharing? Ridiculous. Classy!!

[Sheniy]

I am going to disect scribble all over this post with my scalpel blue marker.
 

 

 

 

How many seekers have we pushed away because they couldn't accept this claim of a young earth?

None. Usually, Christianity is rejected on the grounds that evolution makes more sense. Many atheists on this board who claim to have been Christians before cite evolution as a major enabler for their deconversion from Christianity.

 

Yeah. Because they couldn't accept the claim of a young earth.

Isn't this arguing in favor of my point?

 

Well, no. Because they were not rejecting YEC in a vacuum. What...? If you could find someone not already pretty much convinced of an old earth, who had taken science classes in highschool and universities that teach OEC, Evolution, etc. And present THAT person with the YEC, how would they respond? I don't know if that question can be answered.
How exactly is that a vacuum? You'd be looking for someone with no exposure to any theories of the creation of the world. Then give them the bible and see what they come up with. If I'd lived, say, 1000 years ago and read the bible for the first time, I likely wouldn't have any issues with the concept of a young earth. I would also likely believe that the earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe. (<---clicky)



The reason that people cannot accept YEC is not because YEC on its own has no merit and is just too far out for anyone to believe. It is because most people have already been convinced of the OE or evolutionary models already. They are not blank slates looking at the YEC model for the first time without any preconceptions. That makes a difference.
You seem to have misunderstood the original question. I was talking about seekers (meaning anyone searching for truth) rejecting Christianity as a whole because it is so inextricably tied with YEC, which they cannot accept. Your first reply to this seem in line with (and in favor of) this with that example of former Christians rejecting their faith for atheism because evolution made more sense than YEC.

Which is why your next sentence doesn't really make sense...


YEC has never made anyone an atheist. YEC was rejected in favor of Evolution because to them Evolution is better and more reasonable.
Clearly, YEC is at least partially to blame for those people falling away. If we ask them, I'm sure they'd agree.

 

Why would we want to place our faith in a possibility and not in the truth? There are all kinds of possibilities, but that really isn't something you can anchor your heart to. As Christians we should be after the truth.

As of yet, I have not met any single person who was actively and consciously seeking deception. I don't know why anyone would want to.

I was a YEC for decades. I read the creationist books and websites and argued fervently in favor of a young earth. It was a "truth" I "anchored my heart to" (as you say). So when that specific "truth" came under fire (again and again), my whole faith was shaken. Hard.
I took this to God in prayer. I realized that this wasn't a salvation issue, and that my faith would survive without it. So I let it go. IMHO, it wasn't a hill to die on.

Maybe I still believe. I don't know. I'm on the fence. And I might just stay here. I have a nice view of both sides.

 

I understand. YEC is mocked and ridiculed, swore at. It isn't easy. I can imagine the prophets in the OT contemplating whether being rejected by the people and having to suffer reproach for their message was really kind of overrated.


Just because something isn't a salvation issue, doesn't mean it isn't important. But it is not as important as a salvation issue. We are called on sometimes to stand for something in God's word when it isn't popular and everyone else is telling you are crazy for standing on that part of Gods' word. That's true. Although you're implying I backed down due to pressure from others. Not even kinda true. I had my own questions that YEC couldn't answer. I rejected YEC because I felt it was actually a hindrance to my faith in the validity and inerrancy of the Word of God.   It is easier to let go and just roll with the crowd and get along.

The problem that I would see in your above comments is this: What's next? What's the next part of God's word that you will let go of when it gets too hot in the kitchen?  Where do we stop?


Figured this would come up sooner or later. This is the crux of your whole argument, isn't it? If I reject YEC, I reject the God's Word.  That's what you're saying, right? 

I believed that lie once. It lead to fear that my faith would eventually crumble due to lack of foundation. If I question one part of God's Word, I would eventually question all of it until my faith eventually spiraled into the trash.


If we surrender Genesis 1 to the world, they won't be satisfied. They will demand more, until the whole Bible is nothing more than an irrelevant, man-made philosphy book and Jesus was just a great guy with some nice things to say, but not to be taken literally.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I used to fear.

[Guest shiloh357]

That is the whole issue, you cannot absolutely prove that it is false. 

 

I'm not the one with the burden of proof.   I can't prove a negative.   You are the one with the claim that there was a pre-adamite earth.   The problems for your argument are as follows:

 

1.  The Bible doesn't actually claim there was a pre-adamite earth.

2.  The Hebrew grammatical structure of Gen. 1:2 precludes the possibility of a pre-adamite earth

3.  So far, you have not been able to produce ONE mainstream scholarly translation of the Bible that disproves what I have presented about basic Hebrew grammar

4.  The Scriptures you have provided to support a pre-adamite earth are interpreted through the filter of your assumption that a pre-adamite earth ever existed.  Thus you are assuming what you are trying prove, which is completely fallacious.

5.  No Christian scholar of the original languages supports the pre-adamite theory.

 

 

The dateless past was not something we just made up.  It has existed in the midrash and writings of rabbis and sages.

 

I am not saying there was no dateless past.  My point is that you cannot prove that God created anything before He created the earth.

 

There are Bible verses to support that eternity.  Your passion rules and controls you. 

 

I realize that there are verses to support the notion of a dateless past.   What you need are verses that say, "At some point before God created the earth, there was a previous earth where satan ruled  and rebelled against God and God destroyed the world, but for some reason failed to destroye satan and allowed Him back on to the second earth."

 

Those rules that you keep criticizing are there to keep us from making unwarranted assumptions about the Bible.  They provide boundaries and gaurd against false doctrines.  They keep the interpretation of Scripture objective and free of emotion and personal agenda.   They are the rules of literary analysis that we use every day when we read the newspaper, or a fictional novel or a cookbook.   They are simply a refinement of every day thinking.   We use hermeneutics on a daily basis but for some reason people want to throw them out when it comes to reading the Bible.   The only reason to reject hermeneutics is because you have an agenda afoot and your preconceptions are more important than the truth.

 

You have pronounced judgment and you believe your judgment is totally correct and the only one G-d approved.

 

No, I have simply learned how to spot false teachings and I can easily apply objective methods of testing your arguments against the word of God.   I use the Word of God as afilter to analyze the truth value of your claims and I find them seriously lacking in that area.

 

 

The opposite can be argued that you and YEC limits the majesty of the Eternal Creator.  You and YEC have him not doing much except over the past 10,000 years.

 

I don't really see how that limits His majesty.   His majesty is seen in what He has made, not in how long it took Him to make it.  The Bible only draws attention to the magnitude of creation and that is, in part, where His glory is revealed in what He has made.  It is not seen just in the magnitude of creation but in the logical, ordered and supreme complex harmony of the entire created order, both in the biosphere and in the biological life, as well.   It reveals his character/nature.   These the ways God is glorified in what He has made.  So to claim that YEC detracts from that solely on the basis of it taking less time to make really doesn't serve as a logical or cogent arguement against YEC.

 

You are also guilty of using scripture in a way that justifies the inadequate 1972 YEC postulation.

 

The belief that the world is only thousands of years old predates 1972 and many of the great scientists of the western world were young earth creationists in function if not in form.  They didn't refer to themselves in those terms, but their beliefs are by-in-large consistent with the modern YEC model. 

 

An equally illegitimate use of texts.  See, Shiloh, the point is, no one knows for absolute certain.  To say so would be proud...and G-d resists the proud! 

 

I haven't used any texts Illegimately at all.  You can't point to one text that I have taken out of context or mishandled.    As for not knowing...   That is also wrong.   I have the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful God who said that He made the world in six days.  He doesn't lie and He doesnn't make mistakes.  There is no room for "interpretation."  It is a straightfoward claim and I have learned over the years that God means exactly what He says.

 

So I don't have to guess.  I don't have to speculate or make up theories. I dont' have to rely on fairytales and wishful thinking, I don't have to muddy the water about what the Bible says just to make my claims appear legitimate. 

 

 I don't have to claim that I don't know.  I have the word of an all-knowing God and I know what He says and I know that He is always correct and I know that He is always faithful, and true and there is nothing false in Him.  So, I know based on the inspired, inerrant, and immutable word of God, what the truth is.   You may not know; you may be uncertain, but I will not join you in that fog.   I will stay right over here in the light, of the Shekinah glory of Gods Word.

 

[Sheniy]

 

I will put together a small outline backing my argument....note, it is not primarily for you; perhaps not even remotely.  We both know nothing will convince you of anything that might be used to support OE or non-absolutely-literal reading of Scripture. I have no intention of so using this (I could care less how old the earth is).  But since it could be used, I know you are already in disagreement. Rather, it will be for those who are not yet convinced, and those tired of the science/Scripture debate, and those who would like to know what scholarship is discovering in these ancient texts.

 

I will attempt to put together the bibliography but that means going through all my books and syllabi which is tedious.  And no doubt (this is not conjecture or "straw man", it is you're inevitable counterattack) you will denigrate each one for some reason (He's a Catholic; or he supports gays; or he eats his brats with ketchup).  But I will do it all the same to show I am not alone.

 

clb

 

I'd be interested in seeing this, too. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

One of the best ways to interpret Scripture is through other Scripture.  You cannot read your Bible like it is the latest novel off the New York Best Seller's list.  If you would dig through the Scriptures, as if searching for treasure, you may find additional exegesis.  The constant roar that anyone who does not agree is spreading false doctrine is a primitive debate tactic to swing the debate in your favor, when really and often, you cannot respond with an adequate answer.

My argument is not that if you disagree with me you are spreading false doctrine.   My argument is that the Gap Theory is a false doctrine.  It impugns God's character and really borders on heresy, though I doubt it completely rises to the level of heresy.

 

There is a differnce between using Scripture to interpreet Scripture and strining verses together to support a theory that is completely false at the outset.  You are trying to use Scripture in a way that justifies a false teaching, and that is an illegitimate use of the texts.

Shiloh, I see you have learned the art of using key words to arouse passion from the masses- false doctrine, God's character, heresy ( that was a good one), illegitimate (people react to this word no matter what setting).

Hard to believe so many godly men are guilty of all this. Well, at least in your eyes.

Oh, what was that adjective you used to describe what shar has been sharing? Ridiculous. Classy!!

 

I stand behind every word I said.   Yes, it is heart-breaking that otherwise intelligent godly men are led astray by this false teaching of a Gap.