YEC and OEC Summary

[Sheniy]

Unbiased?  Really?

 

I was being Facetious    Did you notice the smiley face?

 

I did. It's just...I saw the title and assumed it would be a fair, honest take from both sides.  Guess I was just disappointed. 

Edited February 18, 2014 by Sheniy

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Unbiased?  Really?

 

I was being Facetious    Did you notice the smiley face?

 

 

I did. It's just...I saw the title and assumed it would be a fair, honest take from both sides.  Guess I was just disappointed. 

 

 

 

I Presented the Case.  I'm not on both sides and I'm not "Riding any Fences".  And it was FAIR and HONEST....if you don't think so; THEN PROVIDE REBUTTAL!

[Guest]

Unbiased?  Really?  Your post was drowning in bias.

 

I'm all for you giving evidence of the bible, but at least be honest about where your opinions lie.

 

 

Beloved Honestly It Is No Secret For The Holy Bible

 

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

 

Points Men Toward Jesus

 

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 Scientism

 

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Corinthians 10:5

 

By Design Will Point Men Away

 

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21

 

~

 

Believe

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Joe

[a-seeker]

 

I'm confused (and was nervous to reply since it seems I am disrupting you from reading the very thing that will answer one of your questions).  But I'll answer again.

 

 

Yes, I do think your rhetorical style is dismissive and therefore ungracious, as well (and even more so) Shiloh's.  The comment was really about Shiloh.  I don't like the quick "Quote" followed by a one liner.  I put a lot of thought into my responses.  I try to understand the other side; when I don't, I try to ask questions so as to better clarify what they are saying--otherwise, how can I disagree or agree with them?!  I don't see this occurring very often.  Typically people on this site start from the observation "this person disagrees with me" and then move immediately to the step "how can I refute them?"  The question "how does he disagree with me and why" is omitted from the process.  Thus the "refutations" are short and degrading.  I am not claiming innocence.  But I think we can all try better (again, a selfish incentive, but it will actually improve our ability to refute---look at Socrates!)

 

My new thread will point out the cultural elements.  You say "I study Scripture against Scripture" or something to that effect.  But Scripture is not written in a vacuum.  English translations depend upon studying not only how words are used in Scripture, but outside of Scripture.  Every commentary you pick up will make a reference to some document existing outside of Scripture.  If you study Milton's Paradise Lost with no knowledge of the 17th c. England, you will miss much and misinterpret much.  Think about it: do you presume to translate and comment on the earliest manuscripts of Beowulf as well as scholars?  Why is Scripture so different?

 

I answered above that the YEC/OEC debate doesn't interest me.  I said I supposed that for now the OEC has a stronger case--I mentioned my appreciation for yours and other's reminder of the Scientific Method which shows neither can be proved.  I'll stay in tune with the physical sciences (i.e. excluding history or textual criticism or archaeology or anthropology) only because it's fascinating (in other words, anything dealing with the age of the earth or the big  bang or evolution).

 

If you insist on putting me in a class, I can only ask, Why?

 

 

 

clb

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

Connor Sir..............................I am Extremely Confused

 

Let me Explain:

 

You say you don't believe in the "GAP Theory" or "The Day Age Theory" and you are neither YEC or OEC...  (it doesn't matter) or more specifically.... "I answered above that the YEC/OEC debate doesn't interest me."

 

OK,  I'll only post a few of many...............

 

On the "GEN 1:2" Thread Message # 188: You Said.................

 

"We OE plead in vain that we see it as Interpretations of Scripture made in light of scientific claims (not opposition, but cooperation)--or as I have said elsewhere (borrowing from Augustine) the exegesis of one of God's books (Scripture) read side by side with the exegesis of the other"

 

Do you see MY CONFUSION??

 

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 66:  You said...............

 

"Actually, I find it more amusing that when science corroborates Biblical narratives (i.e. studies of dinosaur bones suggests a flood), Shiloh (and others) hails science.........but when it doesn't (i.e. old earth theory), well science is constantly changing and should be dismissed...."

 

??

 

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 90:  You said...............

 

"In all discussions regarding the age of the earth (which, by the by, is a subject pertinent to the branch of paleontology and that the majority of vote of that branch is in favor of a very old earth)"

 

??

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 90:  You said...............

 

"I take the position that if the sciences tell us the earth is older than one reading of the Bible, then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture."

 

This is the MOST TROUBLING.

 

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 93:  You said...............

 

"When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus points to it being very old"

 

??

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 99:  You said...............

 

"good many Christian scientist who affirm the Old Earth theory'

 

??

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 99:  You said...............

 

"These counter attacks made by YEarthers sound (to my ears) desperate and at times embarrassing: as when they claim that before God created the Sun, plant life could flourish apart from photosynthesis; but afterwards He altered this (Why?!!) so that photosynthesis was absolutely essential and required the Sun."

 

If you don't believe in the "DAY AGE Theory....then why?

 

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 101:  You said...............

 

Plants can survive a few days without Sunlight.....do you mean they can survive a few days after sunlight has already been given--i.e. if I have to move it is not detrimental to my orchid if it stays in a dark trailer for a day or two?  Or do you mean it can grow and even flourish without any sunlight to begin with?  In other words, If I plant a seed beyond the reach of sunlight on Monday, will it have sprouted by Tuesday?  More so, If I plant a fruit tree completely shielded from Sun light, will it, within 24 hours, have grown into a tree bearing fruit?  Of course one can say, "the light created at day one was sufficient for photosynthesis, and since it is God speaking, there is no problem with vegetation sprouting at an unusual rate (trees springing from the most inchoate stages of vegetable life to full grown fruit bearing trees within 24 hours!)".  But that brings me back to the problem "why would God allow nature to operate one way; then 24 hours operate another?"  Even you do not seem comfortable with the details of Genesis; for instead of saying "God can do what He wants" you attempt to rationalize (based on your scientific experience) a very puzzling phenomenon in Genesis (that of plants growing and flourishing within a 24 hour span without sunlight.

 

Day AGE Theory,  AGAIN

 

 

Can you Please explain this:

 

"Again, there is the question of genre. The flood narrative in Genesis bears too many similarities to other flood myths. The theological differences are deafening. Ancient flood myths have been taken over by God and reshaped for theological purposes."

 

Are you saying GOD has taken over all the Ancient Flood Myths?  If so,.................WHAT????

 

Good questions...and yes I completely see your confusion.

 

One of the helpful things about this site is it helps one clarify one's one thoughts, or rather one's one arguments.

 

I sided with the OEC at first (and still do, but not as passionately as they) but then realized that I didn't like much of their exegesis (i.e. day age and especially gap).  I side with the OEC because I find it hard to believe that the majority of scientific claims are a) absolute hog-wash or b) conspired to undermine Scripture. But that stance is based on science--granted, THEIR science.  One of the things you have helped me understand is the difference between scientific evidence and claims, and claims made by scientists.   IF it helps, I am an oec (lower case significant); if the consensus of the scientists shifts to a younger earth, I will be a yec (lower case significant).  I am not a scientist: nor can I fly a plane.  Is it possible that the next flight I take is piloted by a mad-man?  Perhaps, common sense tells me to take my seat all the same.  I feel the same way with the sciences.

 

I attack the YEC interpretation because I think it is also bad exegesis; in doing so I imagine I will sound like a Day/Ager, for the arguments against YEC are pretty much the same, though my conclusion is not.  In other words, it seems nonsensical to me that plants should spring up within 24 hours without sunlight; and this certainly does sound like a DAY/AGE argument; as if I were to conclude that that DAY was REALLY more than a day allowing plants more time to grow.  But I don't make that maneuver.  There are other options than a) the Bible teaches YEC b)the Bible teaches OEC.  There is mine: c) the Bible doesn't teach either.

 

i defend the sciences because I know at least a few who are honest Christians.  They are OEC's because their own field has led them to believe that; my own field has led me to let them do their job.  I also see some inconsistency among YEC's in their attitude towards science--one moment I am to be suspicious of their every move; the next, I am given link after link showing scientific evidence that the earth is young.

 

I do, however, believe that science can fine-tune our reading of Scripture: I do not think that God's creation is fundamentally at odds with Scripture.  However, whatever effect the OE claims had on my initial reading of Genesis (a long time ago I was probably a Day/Ager; but I don't remember) once I started studying seriously the language of the text and the culture of the time, I came to the conclusion that Genesis does not teach other.

 

 

"Again, there is the question of genre. The flood narrative in Genesis bears too many similarities to other flood myths. The theological differences are deafening. Ancient flood myths have been taken over by God and reshaped for theological purposes."

 

Are you saying GOD has taken over all the Ancient Flood Myths?  If so,.................WHAT????

 

Now, a historical question:  if by all the flood myths you mean that a collection of clay tablets containing all the flood narratives from the Native Americans to the Indonesians were put in front of Moses, and God began to combine and edit them for him; then of course not.  We are dealing with an ancient culture which depended on oral tradition: traditions the ancient Hebrews would have known.  The important Sumerian flood narrative is the Gilgamesh Epic.  The coincidences are too striking to assume that the author of Genesis did not know about it or something like it before it reached its now permanent form (and obviously the AUTHOR of Genesis knew about it).  But the differences are just as striking: especially the contrast in characters between YHWH and the gods, and Noah and Gilgamesh.  This does not mean that NOah's flood is dependent on other narratives (but what would it matter theologically if it were?).  We could easily have something like a shared mythology which bloomed in different ways for different cultures.  But I suspect that when God wrote the tale of Noah (through whomever, Moses?) he was challenging certain assumptions which were certainly held by the majority of the ANE and probably still lurked in the minds of his people, the Hebrews.  They had been living in pagan lands for hundreds of years.  The speed and alacrity with which they worshiped calf indicates that they were pretty much pagans and didn't quite understand the grand operation that GOD was carrying out with them--monotheism.  Genesis (both creation and flood) challenges those assumptions exquisitely.

 

clb

Edited February 18, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[a-seeker]

 

Over the past month or so, we have traveled through the "Mysteries" of  "Divining" the Age of the Earth/Universe.  I will attempt, in this "Unbiased" review, to list each postulate from their respective camp and provide a brief snippet if you will and the "Status".

   Unbiased?  Really?  Your post was drowning in bias.

 

I'm all for you giving evidence of the bible, but at least be honest about where your opinions lie.

 

 

To his credit, Sheniy, I believe the smiley face was meant to be ironic.

 

Oh, but then you two have already been over that.

 

clb

Edited February 18, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Enoch2021]

 

Good questions...and yes I completely see your confusion.

 

One of the helpful things about this site is it helps one clarify one's one thoughts, or rather one's one arguments.

 

I sided with the OEC at first (and still do, but not as passionately as they) but then realized that I didn't like much of their exegesis (i.e. day age and especially gap).  I side with the OEC because I find it hard to believe that the majority of scientific claims are a) absolute hog-wash or b) conspired to undermine Scripture. But that stance is based on science--granted, THEIR science.  One of the things you have helped me understand is the difference between scientific evidence and claims, and claims made by scientists.   IF it helps, I am an oec (lower case significant); if the consensus of the scientists shifts to a younger earth, I will be a yec (lower case significant).  I am not a scientist: nor can I fly a plane.  Is it possible that the next flight I take is piloted by a mad-man?  Perhaps, common sense tells me to take my seat all the same.  I feel the same way with the sciences.

 

I attack the YEC interpretation because I think it is also bad exegesis; in doing so I imagine I will sound like a Day/Ager, for the arguments against YEC are pretty much the same, though my conclusion is not.  In other words, it seems nonsensical to me that plants should spring up within 24 hours without sunlight; and this certainly does sound like a DAY/AGE argument; as if I were to conclude that that DAY was REALLY more than a day allowing plants more time to grow.  But I don't make that maneuver.  There are other options than a) the Bible teaches YEC b)the Bible teaches OEC.  There is mine: c) the Bible doesn't teach either.

 

i defend the sciences because I know at least a few who are honest Christians.  They are OEC's because their own field has led them to believe that; my own field has led me to let them do their job.  I also see some inconsistency among YEC's in their attitude towards science--one moment I am to be suspicious of their every move; the next, I am given link after link showing scientific evidence that the earth is young.

 

I do, however, believe that science can fine-tune our reading of Scripture: I do not think that God's creation is fundamentally at odds with Scripture.  However, whatever effect the OE claims had on my initial reading of Genesis (a long time ago I was probably a Day/Ager; but I don't remember) once I started studying seriously the language of the text and the culture of the time, I came to the conclusion that Genesis does not teach other.

 

 

"Again, there is the question of genre. The flood narrative in Genesis bears too many similarities to other flood myths. The theological differences are deafening. Ancient flood myths have been taken over by God and reshaped for theological purposes."

 

Are you saying GOD has taken over all the Ancient Flood Myths?  If so,.................WHAT????

 

Now, a historical question:  if by all the flood myths you mean that a collection of clay tablets containing all the flood narratives from the Native Americans to the Indonesians were put in front of Moses, and God began to combine and edit them for him; then of course not.  We are dealing with an ancient culture which depended on oral tradition: traditions the ancient Hebrews would have known.  The important Sumerian flood narrative is the Gilgamesh Epic.  The coincidences are too striking to assume that the author of Genesis did not know about it or something like it before it reached its now permanent form (and obviously the AUTHOR of Genesis knew about it).  But the differences are just as striking: especially the contrast in characters between YHWH and the gods, and Noah and Gilgamesh.  This does not mean that NOah's flood is dependent on other narratives (but what would it matter theologically if it were?).  We could easily have something like a shared mythology which bloomed in different ways for different cultures.  But I suspect that when God wrote the tale of Noah (through whomever, Moses?) he was challenging certain assumptions which were certainly held by the majority of the ANE and probably still lurked in the minds of his people, the Hebrews.  They had been living in pagan lands for hundreds of years.  The speed and alacrity with which they worshiped calf indicates that they were pretty much pagans and didn't quite understand the grand operation that GOD was carrying out with them--monotheism.  Genesis (both creation and flood) challenges those assumptions exquisitely.

 

clb

 

 

 

===========================================================================================

 

 

ahhh, OK; I see.  a couple things....

 

i defend the sciences because I know at least a few who are honest Christians.

 

I'm an Honest Christian and have a Heavy "Science" background. 

 

 

They are OEC's because their own field has led them to believe that

 

I think we've put the Death Knell in all "claims that scientists make" concerning the "Age" thingy on this board to the Guillotine..... quite demonstrably.

 

 

I also see some inconsistency among YEC's in their attitude towards science--one moment I am to be suspicious of their every move; the next, I am given link after link showing scientific evidence that the earth is young.

 

A couple things.  I Love science....Real "Science" and I evaluate each "claim" individually on it's own merit.  And when you say "YEC" it implies a stereotype...are you trying to put me in some kind of a Box?  And who cares what anybody says whatever their Lot in Life.....I do not Shut my eyes to it, I take these very seriously....

 

(Proverbs 18:13) "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Not all "Science" is built the same....be careful not to equivocate.

 

 

Now concerning the Flood,  Have you ever considered this scenario..............

 

All Flood Stories are derivative of GOD'S FLOOD (Noah).  The reason they're similar in some aspects but somewhat different in others is that ALL The people who knew the same story were SCATTERED @ the Tower of Babel.  Down through the Centuries the stories were told from Generation to Generation.  They will obviously get sidetracked per each individual "Culture".

 

How about that?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Good questions...and yes I completely see your confusion.

 

One of the helpful things about this site is it helps one clarify one's one thoughts, or rather one's one arguments.

 

I sided with the OEC at first (and still do, but not as passionately as they) but then realized that I didn't like much of their exegesis (i.e. day age and especially gap).  I side with the OEC because I find it hard to believe that the majority of scientific claims are a) absolute hog-wash or b) conspired to undermine Scripture. But that stance is based on science--granted, THEIR science.  One of the things you have helped me understand is the difference between scientific evidence and claims, and claims made by scientists.   IF it helps, I am an oec (lower case significant); if the consensus of the scientists shifts to a younger earth, I will be a yec (lower case significant).  I am not a scientist: nor can I fly a plane.  Is it possible that the next flight I take is piloted by a mad-man?  Perhaps, common sense tells me to take my seat all the same.  I feel the same way with the sciences.

 

I attack the YEC interpretation because I think it is also bad exegesis; in doing so I imagine I will sound like a Day/Ager, for the arguments against YEC are pretty much the same, though my conclusion is not.  In other words, it seems nonsensical to me that plants should spring up within 24 hours without sunlight; and this certainly does sound like a DAY/AGE argument; as if I were to conclude that that DAY was REALLY more than a day allowing plants more time to grow.  But I don't make that maneuver.  There are other options than a) the Bible teaches YEC b)the Bible teaches OEC.  There is mine: c) the Bible doesn't teach either.

 

i defend the sciences because I know at least a few who are honest Christians.  They are OEC's because their own field has led them to believe that; my own field has led me to let them do their job.  I also see some inconsistency among YEC's in their attitude towards science--one moment I am to be suspicious of their every move; the next, I am given link after link showing scientific evidence that the earth is young.

 

I do, however, believe that science can fine-tune our reading of Scripture: I do not think that God's creation is fundamentally at odds with Scripture.  However, whatever effect the OE claims had on my initial reading of Genesis (a long time ago I was probably a Day/Ager; but I don't remember) once I started studying seriously the language of the text and the culture of the time, I came to the conclusion that Genesis does not teach other.

 

 

"Again, there is the question of genre. The flood narrative in Genesis bears too many similarities to other flood myths. The theological differences are deafening. Ancient flood myths have been taken over by God and reshaped for theological purposes."

 

Are you saying GOD has taken over all the Ancient Flood Myths?  If so,.................WHAT????

 

Now, a historical question:  if by all the flood myths you mean that a collection of clay tablets containing all the flood narratives from the Native Americans to the Indonesians were put in front of Moses, and God began to combine and edit them for him; then of course not.  We are dealing with an ancient culture which depended on oral tradition: traditions the ancient Hebrews would have known.  The important Sumerian flood narrative is the Gilgamesh Epic.  The coincidences are too striking to assume that the author of Genesis did not know about it or something like it before it reached its now permanent form (and obviously the AUTHOR of Genesis knew about it).  But the differences are just as striking: especially the contrast in characters between YHWH and the gods, and Noah and Gilgamesh.  This does not mean that NOah's flood is dependent on other narratives (but what would it matter theologically if it were?).  We could easily have something like a shared mythology which bloomed in different ways for different cultures.  But I suspect that when God wrote the tale of Noah (through whomever, Moses?) he was challenging certain assumptions which were certainly held by the majority of the ANE and probably still lurked in the minds of his people, the Hebrews.  They had been living in pagan lands for hundreds of years.  The speed and alacrity with which they worshiped calf indicates that they were pretty much pagans and didn't quite understand the grand operation that GOD was carrying out with them--monotheism.  Genesis (both creation and flood) challenges those assumptions exquisitely.

 

clb

 

 

 

===========================================================================================

 

 

ahhh, OK; I see.  a couple things....

 

i defend the sciences because I know at least a few who are honest Christians.

 

I'm an Honest Christian and have a Heavy "Science" background. 

 

 

They are OEC's because their own field has led them to believe that

 

I think we've put the Death Knell in all "claims that scientists make" concerning the "Age" thingy on this board to the Guillotine..... quite demonstrably.

 

 

I also see some inconsistency among YEC's in their attitude towards science--one moment I am to be suspicious of their every move; the next, I am given link after link showing scientific evidence that the earth is young.

 

A couple things.  I Love science....Real "Science" and I evaluate each "claim" individually on it's own merit.  And when you say "YEC" it implies a stereotype...are you trying to put me in some kind of a Box?  And who cares what anybody says whatever their Lot in Life.....I do not Shut my eyes to it, I take these very seriously....

 

(Proverbs 18:13) "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Not all "Science" is built the same....be careful not to equivocate.

 

 

Now concerning the Flood,  Have you ever considered this scenario..............

 

All Flood Stories are derivative of GOD'S FLOOD (Noah).  The reason they're similar in some aspects but somewhat different in others is that ALL The people who knew the same story were SCATTERED @ the Tower of Babel.  Down through the Centuries the stories were told from Generation to Generation.  They will obviously get sidetracked per each individual "Culture".

 

How about that?

 

 

 

================================================================================================

 

 

Let me add one more thing......Gilgamesh = Nimrod and he has about 50 other names.  His wife Semiramis also has hundreds of names.  Why?  The same scenario as the Flood Story.  These people were worshiped as gods.....then SCATTERED.  They took them to each of their " Cultures" and gave them different names.

 

Nimrod-------------------------Semiramis----------------------------Tammuz

 

You want to try nail down where all the FALSE gods on the Planet came from..... There ya go!!!!  Good Luck with your search....it will lead you right back to these THREE!!!! 

 

You may start to put some things together.......Maybe      Happy Hunting!!

[gray wolf]

--nm

[ARGOSY]

Now lets take a closer look at the first verse in genisis:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Lets focus on the word "created" for a moment.  In hebrew its the word 'bara  and it is a verb.  many teach/preach that this hebrew verb 'bara means God made it out of nothing.  Just poof and it was there.  Now personally I have had "encounters" with The Almighty and I know from being in His presence He can Poof something into exsistance.  So I am not saying he cant do that.  but thats another story.  back to the word 'bara.  In this instance it is translated to the english word create.  However if we look to Joshua 17:18 we see this same exact word in hebrew ('bara) translated as the word "cut"  as in cutting down trees to clear out the land.  If we do a deeper study on the word 'bara we find that originally it had a meaning of carving or sculpting or cutting out.  The word can be used both to create by bringing into exsistance AND it can be used in a sense of fashioning something that is already in exsistance.  And when we consider this with the fact that there is no scripural evidence to back up God made the water its possible and based on genisis 1:2 probable God fashioned the earth out of something already there.  Again I am not promoting the gap theory and thats mainly due to alot of things assumed and read into The Book.  ..................................

 

I only present this as food for thought.  I am not preaching this as matter in factly or as gospel truth.  The truth is no one alive today was alive thousands of years ago to actually witness God making/creating/fashioning/forming/whatever word you want to use so no one realy knows for sure.  Unless God gave them a vision or a dream about it. 

 

just another side note if you do a deep word study on genisis/the bible/hebrew you will find six hebrew words used for "create"

bara- create(1:1), asah- make(1:7), nathan- set(1:17), yatsar- form(2:7), banah- make or build(2:22), and qanah- create, posses, get, or aquire(4:1 and 14:19).

Thanks for the accurate and informative post.

[a-seeker]

Good questions...and yes I completely see your confusion.

 

One of the helpful things about this site is it helps one clarify one's one thoughts, or rather one's one arguments.

 

I sided with the OEC at first (and still do, but not as passionately as they) but then realized that I didn't like much of their exegesis (i.e. day age and especially gap).  I side with the OEC because I find it hard to believe that the majority of scientific claims are a) absolute hog-wash or b) conspired to undermine Scripture. But that stance is based on science--granted, THEIR science.  One of the things you have helped me understand is the difference between scientific evidence and claims, and claims made by scientists.   IF it helps, I am an oec (lower case significant); if the consensus of the scientists shifts to a younger earth, I will be a yec (lower case significant).  I am not a scientist: nor can I fly a plane.  Is it possible that the next flight I take is piloted by a mad-man?  Perhaps, common sense tells me to take my seat all the same.  I feel the same way with the sciences.

 

I attack the YEC interpretation because I think it is also bad exegesis; in doing so I imagine I will sound like a Day/Ager, for the arguments against YEC are pretty much the same, though my conclusion is not.  In other words, it seems nonsensical to me that plants should spring up within 24 hours without sunlight; and this certainly does sound like a DAY/AGE argument; as if I were to conclude that that DAY was REALLY more than a day allowing plants more time to grow.  But I don't make that maneuver.  There are other options than a) the Bible teaches YEC b)the Bible teaches OEC.  There is mine: c) the Bible doesn't teach either.

 

i defend the sciences because I know at least a few who are honest Christians.  They are OEC's because their own field has led them to believe that; my own field has led me to let them do their job.  I also see some inconsistency among YEC's in their attitude towards science--one moment I am to be suspicious of their every move; the next, I am given link after link showing scientific evidence that the earth is young.

 

I do, however, believe that science can fine-tune our reading of Scripture: I do not think that God's creation is fundamentally at odds with Scripture.  However, whatever effect the OE claims had on my initial reading of Genesis (a long time ago I was probably a Day/Ager; but I don't remember) once I started studying seriously the language of the text and the culture of the time, I came to the conclusion that Genesis does not teach other.

 

 

"Again, there is the question of genre. The flood narrative in Genesis bears too many similarities to other flood myths. The theological differences are deafening. Ancient flood myths have been taken over by God and reshaped for theological purposes."

 

Are you saying GOD has taken over all the Ancient Flood Myths?  If so,.................WHAT????

 

Now, a historical question:  if by all the flood myths you mean that a collection of clay tablets containing all the flood narratives from the Native Americans to the Indonesians were put in front of Moses, and God began to combine and edit them for him; then of course not.  We are dealing with an ancient culture which depended on oral tradition: traditions the ancient Hebrews would have known.  The important Sumerian flood narrative is the Gilgamesh Epic.  The coincidences are too striking to assume that the author of Genesis did not know about it or something like it before it reached its now permanent form (and obviously the AUTHOR of Genesis knew about it).  But the differences are just as striking: especially the contrast in characters between YHWH and the gods, and Noah and Gilgamesh.  This does not mean that NOah's flood is dependent on other narratives (but what would it matter theologically if it were?).  We could easily have something like a shared mythology which bloomed in different ways for different cultures.  But I suspect that when God wrote the tale of Noah (through whomever, Moses?) he was challenging certain assumptions which were certainly held by the majority of the ANE and probably still lurked in the minds of his people, the Hebrews.  They had been living in pagan lands for hundreds of years.  The speed and alacrity with which they worshiped calf indicates that they were pretty much pagans and didn't quite understand the grand operation that GOD was carrying out with them--monotheism.  Genesis (both creation and flood) challenges those assumptions exquisitely.

 

clb

 

 

===========================================================================================

 

 

ahhh, OK; I see.  a couple things....

 

i defend the sciences because I know at least a few who are honest Christians.

 

I'm an Honest Christian and have a Heavy "Science" background. 

 

 

They are OEC's because their own field has led them to believe that

 

I think we've put the Death Knell in all "claims that scientists make" concerning the "Age" thingy on this board to the Guillotine..... quite demonstrably.

 

 

I also see some inconsistency among YEC's in their attitude towards science--one moment I am to be suspicious of their every move; the next, I am given link after link showing scientific evidence that the earth is young.

 

A couple things.  I Love science....Real "Science" and I evaluate each "claim" individually on it's own merit.  And when you say "YEC" it implies a stereotype...are you trying to put me in some kind of a Box?  And who cares what anybody says whatever their Lot in Life.....I do not Shut my eyes to it, I take these very seriously....

 

(Proverbs 18:13) "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Not all "Science" is built the same....be careful not to equivocate.

 

 

[qoute]Now concerning the Flood,  Have you ever considered this scenario..............

 

All Flood Stories are derivative of GOD'S FLOOD (Noah).  The reason they're similar in some aspects but somewhat different in others is that ALL The people who knew the same story were SCATTERED @ the Tower of Babel.  Down through the Centuries the stories were told from Generation to Generation.  They will obviously get sidetracked per each individual "Culture".

 

How about that?

Now concerning the Flood,  Have you ever considered this scenario..............

 

All Flood Stories are derivative of GOD'S FLOOD (Noah).  The reason they're similar in some aspects but somewhat different in others is that ALL The people who knew the same story were SCATTERED @ the Tower of Babel.  Down through the Centuries the stories were told from Generation to Generation.  They will obviously get sidetracked per each individual "Culture".

 

How about that?

 

 

 

Prove it.