Jump to content
IGNORED

“Five Biblical reasons I am not a Young Earth Creationist”


one.opinion

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Barbarian observes:

St.Augustine, for example.

1 hour ago, Xavier said:

I'm afraid that's not true, though it's often repeated:

Well, let's take a look...

Although Augustine was alert to broader philosophical issues in his context, his interpretation of Genesis 1 was ultimately rooted in certain exegetical concerns. For example, Augustine wrestled with the nature of the light in days 1-3 before the creation of the luminaries on day 4. Noting the phrase “let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years” in Genesis 1:14, Augustine asked, “who can fail to see how problematic is their implication that times began on the fourth day, as though the preceding three days could have passed without time?” This problem greatly vexed Augustine. Ultimately, he identified the pre-solar light of day 1 with the spiritual/angelic creation.

...

Another textual difficulty that weighed on Augustine was the challenge of relating Genesis 2:4-6 to the creation week of Genesis, particularly the different usage of the word “day” in 2:4 and the apparent dischronology introduced in 2:5 (“when no shrub had yet appeared”). He devotes the entirety of Book 5 of his literal commentary to how Genesis 2:4-6 “with all their problems, confirm the opinion that creation was the work of one day.” Anticipating the charge that his notion of instantaneous creation draws too heavily on Sirach 18:1 in the Old Latin version (“he who remains for eternity created all things at once”), Augustine appeals to the textual proximity of these verses: “now we get evidence in support, not from another book of holy Scripture that God created all things simultaneously, but from next door neighbor’s testimony on the page following this whole matter.

Augustine also drew attention to God’s rest on the Sabbath after the completion of creation in Genesis 2:1-3. Insisting that “God did not delight in some kind of temporal period of rest after hard toil,” he argued that this language must be taken analogically.

...

Many features of Augustine’s treatment of Genesis 1 run counter to modern inclinations, in both fundamentalist and historical-critical canons of interpretation. But rarely are the differences unique to Augustine over and against other patristic and medieval exegetes. Indeed, Augustine’s taking the days as a kind of framework or literary device had precedent in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus the Blind, and Athanasius, and it was Augustine’s own view, as qualified later by Gregory the Great and then propagated by Isidore of Seville and Bede, that so dominated the medieval discussion that Andrew Brown calls it “the defining statement with which every medieval and Renaissance commentator on Gen. 1:1-2:3 would wrestle.”

Our efforts today to discern a “literal” interpretation of Genesis 1 should reckon with this legacy of Augustinian exegesis. Even if we ultimately regard the days as 24-hour periods of time, we should appreciate the sincerity of the struggle that many devout interpreters—including many pre-Darwinian interpreters—have had with textual details such as the nature and sequence of light, the different meanings of day (Hebrew yom) throughout the passage, and the presentation of divine activity such as rest. If we can accept that different views in this area can be orthodox even when wrong, we can avoid the unwelcome implication that St. Augustine must be anathematized as a “liberal.” That sounds like a wise idea to me.

https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/09/did-augustine-read-genesis-1-literally/

 

So no, he didn't see Genesis as a literal history.   Not at all, for the textual reasons cited.   The text itself says that it is not a literal history.

And yes, with the scientific knowledge available at the time, he had no reason to think the world was very old.    However...

"in matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision ... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture"

St.Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram (p. 41).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Xavier said:

Here is a Creation Science Textbook (from about 1920) that exposed the Piltdown Fraud before evolutionists and secularists caught up some 33 years later.

Unfortunately "No, it's not!" is not a exposure.    In fact, we don't know who did the fraud, but we do know it was "evolutionists" who debunked it.   Here's why:

The whole thing was backwards, according to evolutionary theory.   Here was a large cranium, and an apelike jaw and face.  But evolutionary theory predicted that the evolution of man would  show manlike face and postcranial skeleton first.    So Piltdown man, from the beginning, was an embarrassment to science, which had predicted the opposite.  There was much relief among scientists when it was debunked.

And not surprisingly, the predictions turned out to be true.   Hominins were first found to have manlike bodies before manlike crania.    And once again, evolutionary theory was verified.

Who pulled off the the Piltdown hoax is hard to say.    The cleverness with which the forger introduced minerals into the fossil and bones suggests someone of some intelligence and scientific acumen which suggests a scientist.    The fact that the hoax suggested something contrary to evolutionary theory suggests a creationist.    We'll probably never know for sure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Xavier said:

Here is a Creation Science Textbook (from about 1920) that exposed the Piltdown Fraud before evolutionists and secularists caught up some 33 years later.

We know bad doctrine by its fruits. When ideas produce atheism, godless and hedonistic living, we know from those bad fruits that it is not True or Good.

Since Darwin himself suggested that God created the first living things, that's a very serious misunderstanding on the part of your guy.    And therein lies the real damage YE creationism does:

I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.

In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things.

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to
a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last  young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

...

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

 "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.  I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Former YE creationist Glenn Morton

http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

Fortunately Morton found his way back to Christianity.    Many others in his situation have not.   YE creationism will have much to answer for at Judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

God says:

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

7 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Typical response. Meh.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived, God is not mocked.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.14
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, Xavier said:

One.Opinion, sources?

The quote I was asking about wasn’t referenced. I was wondering if you had that available. That’s what I meant when I asked about a source. Typically, when you provide a quote, you should provide a reference.

4 hours ago, Xavier said:

if DNA still exists in "ancient organisms", that is an incontrovertible scientific proof that millions of years simply never passed)

First, your claim isn’t necessarily true. Schweitzer (who is a Christian, by the way) and others are discovering more about the phenomena of fossils containing soft tissues. Second, what does this say about all of the other fossils that don’t have soft tissue? Rare outliers to a general conclusion (dinosaur fossils are millions of years old) do not prove the general conclusion false.

A single hoax also does not disprove anything. Are you aware of the “Paluxy hoax”? You might find it interesting.

https://ncse.ngo/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown

Edited by one.opinion
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

I believe this thread has ran its course. Lots of getting personal now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...