Recently, I came across a paper in the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry, written by Dr. Kenneth Keathley in 2013, entitled, “Confessions of a Disappointed Young-Earther.”[1] The piece is well done and gives an informative summary of the various arguments and supposed problems of the Young-Earth Creationism movement. After reading it, I must say that I’m just as disappointed as Dr. Keathley, but for different reasons. I’m disappointed that the enemy, who is delegitimizing the truth-claims of Christianity by undermining the authority of Scripture, is often met with so little resistance and so much well-meant, reasonable-sounding cooperation. I’m disappointed that not even the best among us are immune from a skeptical evidentialism. And I’m disappointed that one so capable of competent reason would falter in thinking that evidence has bearing on the question of a recent miraculous creation.
I’m no scientist, and I do not claim to be able to present all the scientific intricacies of the various arguments. To be fair, there do seem to be some valid points brought against Young-Earth “creation science” and even a few points in support of it. Nevertheless, I do not argue for a “young” earth, but for an old earth recently created—what Dr. Keathley presents as Philip Henry Gosse’s “Omphalos argument” or the mature earth view. The Bible clearly and explicitly reveals a recent creation by divine fiat. Miracles being what they are, we should not expect to find proof in physical evidences for this recent miraculous act. But, neither should we expect the secular scientific view to be free from error, overconfidence, and overreaching. Ultimately, though, the scientific argument is irrelevant to the vital question at hand—and that fact is sadly missed by Young-Earthers and Old-Earthers alike.
Some of the criticisms of the Young-Earth view presented in Dr. Keathley’s paper seem born of overconfidence,[2] but much of what he argues seems very reasonable. However, the cracks in his foundation come into view in some of his remarks, such as this criticism in response to Andrew Snelling’s position that God changed the natural laws during the Flood:
Appealing to a change in the laws of nature marks a remarkable change in YEC strategy, and in many ways it also makes a significant admission. As a strategy, it indicates an end to any real attempts to empirically establish the historicity of a global flood. Miracles, by definition, cannot be scientifically examined.[…]
This is a startling admission! It is indeed true that miracles, by definition, cannot be scientifically examined. But why then does Dr. Keathley not apply the same restrictions to attempts to empirically establish when the world was created? Creation either happened as a recent miracle or it did not. If it did, then it cannot be scientifically examined, which removes all the weight from any empirical evidence brought in support of an old earth.
The miraculous creative acts of God leave no trace of scientific physical evidence. If we still had samples of the wine that Jesus had miraculously made from the water, or the bread that He had miraculously multiplied to feed the five thousand, we would not find under a microscope any “miracle particles” among the molecules to prove the miraculous nature of the origin. We would simply find it to be what it is, with nothing to point to the miracle. That is God’s way in performing miracles. Even those who drank the wine were mistaken regarding its origin. Every supernatural miracle of God is deceptive to those who do not believe or know the truth of it.
The supernatural acts of God transcend the natural world. The nature of creation ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) leaves nothing of the supernatural in the nature of what is created. Nothing of the nature of nonexistence, or of the nature of supernatural creation, is brought forward into the nature of what is brought into existence in such a way as to identify what is created with creation ex nihilo. A supernatural origin transcends the nature of the thing created and leaves no mark on its nature to identify it with supernatural origin. How old something is in its nature does not depend on when it was supernaturally created. How long something has existed and how old it is by nature do not have to correlate—not when supernatural acts are involved. The Hebrews’ clothes and shoes never experienced wear and tear when they wandered for forty years in the wilderness because God supernaturally preserved them from getting old (see Deut. 29:5).
After raising Lazarus from the dead, what scientist, upon examining him while alive for the second time, would conclude, based on the evidence, that he was once dead for four days? None would. For that matter, what scientist, if he could examine Adam on the day of his creation, would not declare with absolute scientific authority that Adam’s age must be measured in years and not hours? They would all declare it so, since it is “a scientific fact” that adulthood takes years to develop. The prospect that an adult man is only one day old is scientifically absurd—and so also the raising of a dead and decomposing man, the turning of water into wine in an instant, and the feeding of five thousand with only a few loaves.
This question cannot be denied its place at the head of the line in the logical priority. Before any physical evidence can be admitted as relevant, the question of a recent miraculous creation by fiat must be answered. Only if such a recent miraculous creation is denied from the start can the evidence have any relevance and be given weight. It is a fundamental error in logic to allow physical evidences to weigh against the question of a recent fiat creation—to reject such a recent creation based on the supposed weight of the physical evidence. It is to give up the argument from the start, and accept as evidence-based a conclusion that is actually no less fideistic, since it is as impossible to prove that a miracle did not happen as to prove that it did!
In other words, the truth of a miraculous act must be revealed by God and cannot be established by empirical evidence. Revealed truth is either believed or disbelieved—it is never proven or disproved. However well-intentioned, allowing physical evidence to influence the way one approaches the Biblical text and the prospect of a miraculous act is an inherently skeptical method, skewed from the start toward a naturalistic conclusion. Dr. Keathley states, “[…] I concede that I allow the findings of science to influence the way I approach the creation account in Genesis. I allow experience and evidence to have a significant role in the formation of my position.” Undoubtedly, evidence has a significant role in the formation of his position—but can Dr. Keathley establish that evidence has a proper role in the formation of such a position? He can certainly present evidence for an old earth. But strangely absent is any evidence confirming that a recent miraculous creation would result in a world any different than what we now find.
This utterly sweeps away all justification for allowing the findings of science to influence the way one approaches the creation account in Genesis! And it lays bare a preconceived skepticism that would presume to weigh the revelation of Scripture against the evidences of the world. And don’t be fooled: this question cannot be dismissed—accepting the weight of natural evidence is itself an unsupported affirmation that no instantaneous miracle occurred. Therefore, those who accept the scientific evidence that the earth has existed for billions of years do so without any proof that such evidence can validly be applied to the question! To prove that the evidence has bearing on the question would require proof that no miraculous creation by fiat occurred. Thus, the whole Old-Earth view is founded on mere preconceived skepticism against instantaneous miracles as explanations for the origin of the world.
Dr. Keathley objects that the mature creation argument cannot be proven:
[…] the mature creation argument is unfalsifiable. This means it can be neither proven nor disproven. As Bertrand Russell observed, “We may all have come into existence five minutes ago, provided with ready-made memories, with holes in our socks and hair that needed cutting.” Since there is no way to prove the theory, we have moved from the realm of science into the realm of metaphysics. The mature creation argument truly is a fideistic position, since it places creation beyond investigation.
Rather than the realm of metaphysics, we have moved into the realm of the supernaturally-revealed, taken-on-faith miraculous. Since Dr. Keathley is a Professor of Theology, I’m sure he is familiar with many such things in this realm that are given to us in Scripture as matters of faith that are unfalsifiable and beyond scientific investigation. As for Russell’s concern, it is true that God could have created this world five minutes ago; however, Scripture reveals a chronology that we accept on faith, and Russell’s hypothetical chronology has no basis in Scripture. His implied criticism that we are left without an anchor of truth is false.
Dr. Keathley objects that the mature creation argument “seems almost to embrace a denial of physical reality. Certain advocates of the argument do not hesitate to describe the universe as an illusion. […] At this point the arguments for the appearance of age seem uncomfortably Gnostic.” I’m not really arguing for a universe that was created looking old, but for a universe that was already old when first created. In other words, God didn’t merely add certain qualities to the universe to make it appear old; but rather, He created a world in which all natural processes were already “in progress.” Instead of creating the world at the starting point for all these natural processes, He created the whole thing out of nothing about six thousand years ago, effectively stepping into the middle of a trillions-of-years chronology, with the past only virtually existent and everything from creation onward actually existent. This would include a full record of random natural events, without which these natural processes would be less than natural.
Actual existence begins when God creates. Reality is substantial. Think about the wine made from water. As wine, it did not exist until Jesus created it. Yet, there was a virtual past of grapes growing, being harvested, being crushed and the juice being fermented. The results of that virtual past could have been seen under a microscope or chemical analysis, and were tasted by the guests. As we peer into the night sky, we see the virtual past still “in action,” as we see the results in most of the starry sky. Science can never detect that God stepped into this natural chronology at some recent point and created it all out of nothing, since the supernatural transcends the natural. They may extrapolate back into the past, based on the natural processes at present; but they can, in fact, only speak to what condition the world was in when God created it.
As an illustration, think of God having created a ball at some point on a long incline. The ball is created, and rolls down the incline. People at the bottom of the incline can measure the speed of the ball, and calculate from the inertia, etc., when it was that the ball was stationary and began to roll, and thus conclude when God created it. But they have assumed that God created it stationary. If God created not a stationary ball but a ball already rolling, then the calculations as to when the ball was stationary would conclude a starting point preceding the creation point—a virtual past. God created a world in motion—”in motu.”
God could easily have left physical evidence to prove His existence and His creating, but He chose to only be found by faith. Unbelief is spiritual rebellion—a willful denial of the spiritual truth that God reveals to every man, and a self-reliance on physical senses to the enshrinement of natural evidence as ultimate determiner of truth. God will not be found by such rebels. A man must be willing to drop his rebellion and embrace what God has spiritually revealed. The prospect of God and his miraculous working is not determinable by scientific inquiry.
When it comes to a recently created earth versus an old earth, it’s not really a matter of one Biblical interpretation over another, as if all were equal. It’s a matter of an interpretation versus an incorporation. The former relies on revealed truth alone, while the latter incorporates both the revealed truth and the supposed discovered truth of [a particular interpretation of] physical evidences. Can we be honest here? It’s not like the Bible is vague and mysterious regarding how long it took God to create the world or how long ago it happened. No, the fog didn’t roll in for most of the Church until “science” insisted that the earth was far older than is indicated by the plain reading of the Biblical account. The insistence of science fueled the drive to come up with alternative interpretations—ones that wouldn’t contradict the science, and so various compromises have been proposed.
To those who believe in a recent, miraculous creation, it is a matter of whether or not the intended meaning of the author is held in such importance that the text be allowed to speak for itself—with every effort made to not read into the text ideas that were not intended—and to get our clues as to what was intended only from the text itself, rather than permitting ideas, claims, evidences and authorities from outside of the text to tell us what the text means. This is why we go by the axiom, If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense. When it tells us that Christ physically rose from the dead and left the tomb, we don’t allow science to weigh in and tell us that He must not have actually died, but only “swooned,” since dead bodies do not reanimate. Science must be ignored in this matter, since it is a supernatural matter outside of their ability to explain, detect, or prove. For us today, it is a matter of pure revelation. The eyewitnesses are dead and unavailable for examination. But we believe the Bible’s testimony because our faith lets Scripture speak for itself and we refuse to look for an alternative interpretation regardless of how ridiculous or absurd our belief might seem to skeptics.
The creation account is one of the clearest, most straightforward chronological-historical accounts in Scripture. As if in anticipation of end-times skepticism, God specified, “and evening and morning were the [first, second, etc.] day.” And now, not even that is enough, as Christians—jaded by the scientific overconfidence—read such a sentence and wonder how the text might plausibly be construed to mean something else. The Old-Earth interpretations only appear to be justified in their rejection of the plain, straightforward reading when backed up by the supposed weight of the physical evidence. However, since God is fully capable of creating a world that is “old” from the first moment of existence, then the solid ground of physical evidence that justified resorting to Old-Earth interpretations vanishes.
When the straightforward, plain-sense reading is that of an historical account, we ought to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt and assume that the plain reading is the correct understanding unless Scripture itself gives us warrant to look for an alternative meaning. Anything less than this standard of Scriptural authority yields a hermeneutic by which anyone can make the Bible say anything he wants it to. The Bible should be allowed to speak for itself… and we should believe what it says!
[1] Kenneth Keathley, “Confessions of a Disappointed Young-Earther,” Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry, (The Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry), Fall 2013, Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 3-17; at http://www.baptistcenter.net/journals/JBTM_10-2_Fall_2013.pdf
[2] For example, the Canopy Theory is said to be impossible due to a supposed runaway greenhouse effect that would “boil the earth.” Since the Canopy does not currently exist for analysis, such objections are mere stabs in the dark—guesswork that proves nothing. If God controlled the earth to bring about the Great Flood (whether mediately or immediately), then could He not also cause things to happen in such a way that ideal temperature ranges were maintained both before and after?
. . . While the water vapor canopy may or may not have existed, the fact that death did not enter the world until the first couple sinned is a fact of revealed truth. In criticizing the idea that the law of entropy did not exist until man sinned, Dr. Keathley again shows the unjustified confidence with which Old-Earthers dismiss that which they do not completely understand. We have no solid idea of how extensive the differences in a pre-sin world might have been. Dr. Keathley claims that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is necessary for digestion; but how can he know that digestion itself (as we know it) was needed in a world without entropy or death? It is not inappropriate to assume that immortal physical bodies would likely be very different in nature and internal operation than their mortal counterparts. But it is inappropriate to assume that science today has enough knowledge of what such a world would be like to validly dismiss it as impossible.
Thanks for the article. I too get “disappointed” about this topic and others like it. As Christians I feel we spend to much time jumping on the hobby horse of our choosing. Young in my Christian life my wife and I were looking for a new church. After a few months it became apparent that it was “just not going to work”, when I told the pastor he asked why and I said doctrinal differences. (that was me trying to use my new Christian big boy words) He at the point said “Golly. If we are out of line doctrinally… Read more »
TM, Thanks for your comment. I can appreciate your point. Unnecessary division is to be avoided. The devil does use mere “hobby horses,” as you put it, to divide God’s people. But we cannot afford to characterize all divisive issues in this way, either. The devil can just as easily achieve his destructive ends through ill-advised unity and ungodly acceptance of error. As for the creationism issue, it is one that Southern Baptists can disagree on while remaining in the same denomination. Like eschatology, we are known for our ability to tolerate the views of the other side while working… Read more »
Interesting. There is no basis on which Keithley and Hamrick can even have a discussion. I suppose the good Prof will have to endure admonitions as best he can.
I for one am glad our seminary students aren’t intellectually ghettoized on the issue of the age of the earth and all the attendant polemicism. Might as well go with Russell and declare it all done five minutes ago.
Of course, there’s a basis on which Dr. Keathley and I can have a discussion. There are certain foundational presuppositions that must be agreed upon in order to engage one another’s arguments, such as the belief in inerrancy of Scripture. But the article above shows no disagreement in such foundational presuppositions.
Russell’s proposal is not Scriptural.
Keithley is not an inerrantist?
I think Ken just said that Keithley is a believer in inerrancy.
Right. I said that the above article shows no disagreement on such foundational presuppositions as inerrancy.
Cannot myth be inerrant?
Depends on your definitions of “myth” and of “inerrant,” doesn’t it?
John
John,
Yes. And if one decides that Genesis 1-11 is “inerrant myth” then the actual meaning can be interpreted to be pretty much anything at all.
Articles like this always leave me scratching my head. YEC as a position of large acceptance in evangelical circles is a relatively new phenomenon. OEC was the accepted position for centuries. I don’t understand why YEC has to be the new orthodoxy. It’s no more or less essential to the Gospel than OEC.
Does it really matter if God created the world 6 billion, 6 thousand, or 6 minutes ago? What matters is He is its Creator and Sustainer. OEC does not deny this.
May I suggest another way of looking at the issue? The Creation of the heavens and the earth is, by far, the most glorious and majestic thing the Creator has done, so far as we know. The glory and majesty of a six day creation is more than 880 billiion times greater the the glory and majesty of a 14.5 billion years old creation. Or expressed in the opposite way, believing (and teaching) that the heavens are 14.5 billion years old reduces the glory and majesty of God by 880 billion times. Further, if I consider passover, pentecost, and the… Read more »
Is anyone scratching their head that a mathematical equation has been introduced measuring glory? What does this even look like?
I would love to see the work here
14.5 billion old earth = x(glory) < 6 day creation = x(glory).
No reason not to ignore me entirely.
Multiply the times 6 days appear in a year, multiply the years times the 14.5 billion big bang cosmology. Round down. The math is not difficult.
Reducing one’s achievements by that magnitude does not ever please the achiever.
Make that “multiply the sum”, thanks.
Let me try again, since I am being so inexact with terms of math.
How many times does 6 days go into one year? 60.83 times.
How many times does 6 days go into 14.5 billion years? That is 14.5 billion times 60.83, or 882.03 times. Round down. Therefore 880 billion times.
Can Jesus Christ create the heavens and the earth in six days? If so, why claim or teach that He took 880 billion times longer? Will that please Him?
Who will it please?
Jerry, you placed a numerical value on glory. I quote, “The glory and majesty of a six day creation is more than 880 billiion times greater the the glory and majesty of a 14.5 billion years old creation.” You used numerical assignment to measure glory. I don’t think you can prove anything is numerically more glorious than something else. Your measurements are actually of time, not glory. Further I reject if something is created in less time it is more glorious. If God took a trillion years to place every leaf, limb and bark on a tree the end result… Read more »
Glory is honor and fame, is it not?
If you see no greater honor and fame in creating in six days as opposed to 880 billions times longer, then I just don’t know how to discuss the issue with you.
I don’t understand the argument. God gets greatest glory for what he actually does, regardless of how long he takes to do it. So yes, God gets glory for a 6 day creation if a 6 day creation is what he did. If he took 14 billion, then acknowledging that gives him greater glory.
Jerry, I looked past my dismay with your assigning numerical value to glory like you were counting beans and conversed with you, please return the favor and try be patient with me and answer a couple questions, if God were to save 100 people the first night of a revival would that bring Him greater glory than if He saved 25 on Sunday, 25 on Monday, 25 on Tuesday and 25 on Wednesday? While not interested in debating the age of the earth, I would debate vehemently your position is logically flawed and not substantiated in Scripture. God is brought… Read more »
Jerry, why not more glory in a creation ex nihilo that happened this morning and took six seconds? Creation attests to the glory of God adequately as is. God needs no algorithm to maximize His glory.
Dean, I have lifted 700 pounds within a minute. An Olympian does it all at once. I can run 100 meters. An Olympian does it much faster. I can hit a clay pigeon with a shotgun. Glorious shooters can hit 5 in the same amount of time. One who could do all of these things at the same time gets more honor and fame still. Using your illustrations of miraculous healing that contrast instant healings with healings that take many seconds: Since God is involved in all healing, including normal body functions; then I say yes, God gets more glory… Read more »
Jerry, your analogy falls woefully short. You have not lifted seven hundred pounds within a minute. You may have lifted one pound seven hundred times but you have never lifted seven hundred pounds.
When God does something He alone can do then if it takes 5 minutes or 100 years He gets equal glory. This argument for YE is weak.
Not just “short” but “woefully short”?
Woe
1. grief, sorrow, misery, heavy calamity.
2. A curse; a malediction.
I’ve been out of college a long time, but isn’t this what they used to call an “a posteriori argument”?
John
Are you talking about my posteriori?
Woeful
1. full of woe; wretched; unhappy
2. affected with, characterized by, or indicating woe
3. of wretched quality; sorry; poor
I will be using woefully in the sense of #3.
Sense – that would be used in accordance to one’s explanation or view.
No sir. The most glorious thing God has ever done was to sacrifice His Son for the sins of the world. All of creation will one day bow at His feet as a result of His work on our behalf. Philippians 2 contradicts your assertion.
Ryan,
Dr. Al Mohler disagrees with you (as do I). In a video from his conference with R.C. Sproul, he said this:
Ken, First, I don’t give two hoots what Al Mohler says. Second, I guess Augustine and Origen both existed after the 19th century? Both were OEC. Third, YEC dominated the time period from 1500-1800. Not exactly the best time in society’s long storied intellectual history. It did not resurge again until the late 1800’s under the leadership of heretical mystic connected to the Adventists. Fourth, and finally, there are two creation narratives in Genesis. They do not follow the same chronology. Which one am I to accept as the literal order? What am I to do with the other one?… Read more »
I think your argument that the YEC position is of relatively recent origin will find its challengers. This is the same arguments used against various eschatological views with about the same results. In regard to the two creation accounts, I am not sure why you are so confused. I’m sure God did not write it that way to confuse you. Consider perhaps that they are not two versions of the same creation. That might help you with your confusion. Consider that perhaps chapter 2 may not be about the course of creation at all, as is chapter 1. Chapter 2… Read more »
Ken, I find a great and eternal basis on which Christians can have a meaningful discussion. Is Genesis an inerrant narrative statement of God-breathed words, or an inerrant myth, exactly as God intended it to be told in the original autograph(s), althought the 14.5 billion year cosmology cannot possibly be discerned from the text? It is easy to get bogged down in nuance. But I believe that God’s points of view on the Genesis creation account is that the entire creation is young in his eyes, about 6,000 years old. I cannot fathom the possibility of being rebuked by the… Read more »
Amen, Jerry!
JC on “God’s points of view on the Genesis creation account”: “about 6,000 years old”
JC on not accepting the non-stated approximate number: “It is a matter of believing what He said or not.”
Alas, Keithley is not believing, nor I…which accounts for the unprofitability of any discussion, since the starting place is YEC=believing, OE=unbelieving.
I appreciate that SBC seminary students have exposure to Keithley et al. God knows YEC is a pretty thriving industry on its own.
My hope is that my most faithful days are in the future. There is always hope, and not just for me.
I believe my religious opinion on the age of the earth can be tried by the text of Genesis One.
The Baptist Faith and Message, since 1925, had included the phrase (of Scripture) that it is the supreme standard by which all religious opinions should be tried.
One who can make a case for a 14.5 billion years cosmology from Scripture would be welcome into visionary leadership in the old earth creation industry.
We have moved from “God’s points of view” to Jerry’s “religious opinion,” thus, we’re talking interpretive matters. Keithley/Wm and Corbaley/Hamrick differ. That’s fine. And what no BFM has ever included is the age of the earth.
Article One of the BF&M has always stated that religious opinons should be tried by the Scripture; the supreme standard. We can all give it a try. What can it hurt?
It appears you are just changing the subject.
Age of earth has never been stated in the BFM (isn’t explicitly stated in scripture either). You’ve already invoked “God’s points of view” and your “religious opinion.” Which is it? And should all other religious opinions, Keithley’s was targeted here, not apply? Before most YEC adherents all devolved into polemicists, discussions used to be centered around ‘yom’ and gaps, and such. Now the lead-off pitch is that non-YECers are guilty of “unbelief” and don’t have “God’s opinion” of the matter. Yawn. Why isn’t YEC stuff enshrined in the BFM? Adrian, Mohler et al put that together and we voted on… Read more »
You seem to repeat the phrase “God’s points of view”. Is there a problem with it?
Regarding “religious opinions”, it is a quote from the BF&M, and every written word on this blog is a “religious opinion”. Why is that irrelevant? On the one hand you espouse the writing on the BF&M, and on the other hand you seem to consider it irrelevant. Could you clarify?
That’s your wording Jerry. You chose it. I’m certainly OK with Jerry’s opinion of God’s opinion because no BFM considered the age of the earth critical enough to be included and Jerry’s opinion isn’t gospel. The BFM says your opinion on the subject is neither right nor wrong, same as mine.
William, you state that the Word never says anything about the age of the earth. That could be a true statement or a false statement but it suffers from being an incomplete statement. In other words, an argument from silence. What IS a clear statement is that the old age theory comes from a naturalistic presupposition in science and is completely incompatible with the Bible record. The issue with the age of the earth is much more than the “age” of the earth. It is a matter of naturalistic presuppositions versus supernatural ones. Don’t just focus on young versus old.… Read more »
PS–I began my career in life as a scientist (chemist) and continued that quest right up through my master’s degree in which I investigated the theological implications of new developments in quantum physics. We must be careful to not pit a young earth straw man against an old age straw man. We must see the entire systems and compare them. Stephen Hawking, commonly referred to as the smartest man alive, suffers from the same philosophical “blinders” in his position as do some Christian theologians. His present theory on the beginning of the cosmos is brilliant–as long as you ignore its… Read more »
Jack…(enjoyed your postings) I was going to say, unless you didn’t know that Hawking’s stuff has never been proven, you would think he is the smartest man alive. He is famous for disproving now, what he thought he had conjectured as mathematically possible some time back. Oh, to be so famous. 🙂
Jack, what I said was that the age of the earth “isn’t explicitly stated in scripture”.
YE adherents, rather than have to deal with a continual stream of unfavorable evidence learned long ago to (a) dismiss all evidence under the miraculous or such, and (b) create an atmosphere where non-YE believers are demonized (“you can’t accept an old earth and…” ad absurdum).
Given the chance many would purge any who even hint at an earth older than 6-10k.
This is an area for latitude which is why BFMs don’t address it.
William,
I guess what is confusing to me is the idea one could rule out the miraculous when speaking of God’s creative work. I mean, do you honestly feel like the work of God in creation can be thoroughly investigated by naturalistic means?
John: This is the way I think about it: The work of creation can be investigated by naturalistic methods in so far as God used natural means in His work of creation, which we know he did. OECs do not deny the miraculous, and YECs do not deny the natural, they just disagree where one left off and the other began. I’m not ashamed to say that I find the scientific evidence for the age of the earth compelling and the insistence that I interpret Genesis 1 a certain way far less compelling. I did the whole Ken Ham, AIG… Read more »
Bill Mac,
Thanks for the answer, and I agree with what you said. I think that the thing that drives me crazy is the marginalization of people who differ on this issue. I don’t think it’s a test of Christianity at all. To of my heroes were OEC guys, Dr. W.A. Criswell and Dr. J. Vernon McGee.
I mean “two of my heroes”. Also, I am not even sure that I am a YEC any longer. Perhaps I am defensive out of reflex. 😉
I may retain Bill Mac to do all of my commenting on this subject. He mirrors my experience and excels far beyond me in stating it.
I am certainly willing to consider all interpretations of Genesis One that actually attempts to interpret the text. But assertions that other interpretations are rejected seems less than straight forward. Alternate interpretations ignore the time-frame and sequence of events. The text is “interpreted away”.
To totally discredit my point of view, merely write an interpretation of Genesis One that does not ignore the time-frame and sequence of events.
Bill, you said:
Can you expand on this for me? How do we know that God used natural means in His work of creation?
Bill, you also said: I’m not ashamed to say that I find the scientific evidence for the age of the earth compelling and the insistence that I interpret Genesis 1 a certain way far less compelling. In order for you to find the scientific evidence compelling, you had to first find something else compelling—something to give that evidence validity in the face of the possibility that God could have recently created the world with all that evidence as it is. So what was that prior thing that gave all this compelling evidence its validity for you? —Or, was the validity… Read more »
Interesting. I’ve got Keathley’s article bookmarked because I find it so compelling and reasonable. I too am glad that our seminary professors aren’t forced into some lock-step position on issues the the end-times and the age of the earth and aren’t afraid to let students see both sides.
Bill,
I hope the Seminaries do show the students “both sides” of the issue. But I would hope that the side of recent miraculous creation would be presented in its strongest form, and not in a more common but weaker form. Take the article by Dr. Keathley, for example. If this is what he teaches his students, then the recent creation side is not being presented to his students in its strongest form.
“I hope the Seminaries do show the students “both sides” of the issue.”
I know one that has…http://multimedia.sebts.edu/?paged=29
A very interesting and respectful dialogue
Adam,
Did any of the speakers present the Omphalos argument as I’ve presented it here? Maybe we should call this the third side… I think it warrants serious consideration.
I can’t remember, it’s been a while since I watched all of these videos. I do recall that they had two OE and two YE with slightly different views among each group. It’s moderated by Keathley.
Say what you will about my article, but an honest assessment will admit that I have not simply criticized Dr. Keathley, or characterized his position with this or that adjective, but rather, I’ve sought to substantively engage his reasoning with an argument from reason.
I suppose that many will comment here and criticize those of one side or the other—or me—and will characterize my position with this or that adjective. —But what I really hope for is someone who will substantively engage my reasoning with a reasonable argument of their own.
It’s called marginalization Ken. We have some commenters who immediately try to silence with ridicule when someone reveals that they are YEC. You notice that no one is willing to have a conversation with you on the basis of what you wrote.
In case they haven’t noticed, I’m not really presenting the YEC arguments, but the Omphalos argument. Unlike YEC, I’m not debating the old-earth evidence, but arguing that it has no bearing on how recent God created. Still, they have just as much reason to avoid the argument.
“If your eye causes you to stumble pluck it out.” Well, thats the plain reading of the Text sooooo…….
Thanks for demonstrating my comment above.
Your welcome.
Kind of hard to have a Christian conversation when people are being jerks.
I agree!
Now maybe you can allow the adults to talk.
And God bless you too!
By the way, I’m not necessarily an OEC. I just think the “plain reading of the text” argument is a fallacy (as shown above). We interpret Scripture through the context (the language its written in, its use in other parts of the Bible, the historical context, the exegetical context.)
Maybe that’s the way you should have worded it in the first place, ya think?
No, sometimes we need a straightforward example. It always helps me. And it helps me to be open minded and not as offended when I’m shown that I might be in error.
It wasn’t the straightforward example that I take issue with…it’s the blatant sarcasm in your ending. Like I said it’s just a way to marginalize people. I see it used all the time on this issue. And BTW I am not necessarily a YEC
Yea your right it was sarcasm and I apologize. But your “adult” comment was sarcasm as well, brother. But your right, so lets move on because I would like someone to respond to my comment 🙂
You’re right brother I apologize.
I think that your comment has merit. I guess to the more nonliteral folks, I would ask where does the literal end and the nonliteral begin insofar as interpreting the creation narrative is concerned? Was there a literal Adam and Eve? Fall? All of these things are involved in the question of the creation narrative.
Miracles are beyond the scope of science. God’s creation of the universe is miraculous. Thus the creation is beyond science. So why then do we look to science to help us understand the Bible? Help me Science, how Jesus rose from the dead? Help me Science, where His body is now? Help me Science, do people have souls [and/or spirits]? Science has a role in life: to help us understand as much as possible the created world in which we live, to magnify the glory of God. But like every other thing, science has been coopted by the enemy, and… Read more »
Ken, Keithley is easily contacted. Why not ask him to engage since he is in your bullseye? I’d be interested in his response.
An email has now been sent.
I’ll be back around 6…
Interestingly, the incarnation is the exact opposite of creation as you have described it. Maybe we could refine the wording but in creation that which is new was created with age while in the incarnation He who is ancient was begotten as one who new.
Tim,
That IS interesting!
I think Dave Miller is one clever dude to find and put up the one issue that devolves faster than Calvinism. I can’t even think of a way to turn this around to Calvinism but I’m not giving up yet.
Distracts us from the IMB’s Black Thursday missionary reduction plan.
Not to detract from Dave’s cleverness, but the last time this was discussed here, it went to over 300 comments without “devolving.” We CAN talk about this reasonably.
I know you have given this a lot of thought and I’ve read this and similar on your site. Would be good if Keithley addresses the piece.
Thanks, William. Would it be too much to ask Old-Earthers to put some more thought into it as well, and actually address my argument? As yet, no one has. Can God create a world that is already aged? If so, then why do Old-Earthers proceed as if He could not? And if they claim that He could but DID NOT, then it was not evidence that told them that. Thus, they lose the weight of an argument based on evidence.
Bill, You said, “I’m not ashamed to say that I find the scientific evidence for the age of the earth compelling and the insistence that I interpret Genesis 1 a certain way far less compelling.” Assuming you are not an evolutionist, if Adam was scientifically examined week or two after he was created, would he show evidence of being only alive a week or two? I would assume that Adam was a full grown man. And that Adam had language skills and a vocabulary. Would you also assume those things? In other words, no matter how long God took to… Read more »
That question was does believing in OEC make you less a believer in Jesus or in the errancy of the Word?
basically no.
Mike, that is a unique interpretation I had not read, and I’ve read a lot.
I agree with William above that the secular humanist would like to exterminate anyone suggesting a young age for the earth.
What I don’t agree with is 1) So many Christians who are willing to assist in this extermination; and 2) that science has offered any proof whatsoever to prove how the cosmos was created, or when.
John Lennox, a contemporary of Stephen Hawking at Cambridge said, “Nonsense is nonsense even if it is said by a scientist.”
No theories are ever proven. Scientists either find support for them, or they don’t, but no real scientist will ever say a theory is proven, only supported. No biblical interpretations are ever proven either.
I think biblical revelation and general revelation are compatible, so when there are verses that seem to indicate the world is flat or square, or that the sun moves around the earth, I don’t dismiss them as untrue, but I know from science that they aren’t literally true.
…And yet, scientists will tell you that Evolution is FACT.
Bill,
You said,
What does the general revelation tell you about the possibility that Jesus and Lazarus were raised from the dead? or the virgin birth? or Jesus walking on the water? Are the two revelations compatible then?
Certainly. General revelation allows us to study and know the natural world. Miracles are the realm of the supernatural. Raising the dead, walking on water, etc. are impossible. Scripture doesn’t tell us that, science does. That’s what makes them miracles. We only know what miracles are because of science.
Bill, You say that we only know what miracles are because of science. I’d say that common sense alone tells us that the dead do not rise, and the living cannot walk on water, etc. Nevertheless, I have to ask you, can the science that tells us what miracles are also tell us when miracles have happened? Can science confirm, for example, that Jesus did walk on the water or that God did recently create out of nothing (if given that he did)? Dr. Keathley said that experience and evidence had a significant role in the formation of his position?… Read more »
Bill, Right: Theories aren’t proven fact. The Cals have a theory, the Trads have another one. Both theories go to the Bible and declare that from the Bible they have formed their theories. These theories, and others like them, are seeking to explain God’s ways from God’s Word. They don’t rely on secular theories to show spiritual truth. Now I think you believe in the inerrancy of the Word and that you are a born again believer. Before there was material substances, there was God. Then God created material substances. I think you would agree to that. It wasn’t a… Read more »
Bill and any OEC, Respectfully I ask, God’s Word tells us a few things: God created Adam fully grown. Took a rib from Him, and created Eve, fully grown. He created animals fully grown. He created trees fully grown and with ripe fruit already on them. He created stars in the sky, already shining. So says God in His Word to us. Science says: IMPOSSIBLE. Of course they do. They assume everything had natural origins and thus rule out supernatural events. They then proceed to examine and theorize what they now observe and can test to seek to get closer… Read more »
After a whole day and 85 comments, NOT ONE Old-Earther has engaged my argument. Here it is, in four simple sentences:
Can God create a world that is already aged?
If so, then why do Old-Earthers proceed as if He could not?
And if they claim that He could but DID NOT, then it was not evidence that told them that.
Thus, they lose the weight of an argument based on evidence.
Ken is not saying nor am I that any OEC is any less a Christian because they believe in OEC. But brothers, since your argument is nit from the Word of God [or if it is please show me], then why do you desire to believe secular science over supernatural Word? Now maybe you once thought [or still do] that the origin of the world is not a subject addressed by the Bible. There are many subjects that science delivers truth on that the Bible is silent on. So maybe your thinking is that the origin of the world is… Read more »
Keep up the good work Mike—someone might see the light eventually.
If I may indulge you all one more time… No one looks at Dave Miller today and thinks he is six years old. Rather they think, “that guy is old!” he talks like n old guy, he even dresses in a lime suit, like an old guy, man Dave Miller is ancient. And of course they are right. It would be ludicrous to think he is only six years old. And that is because everything we see, and everything we know of, and everything that has been documented *ages*. From the pyramids in Egypt to the house we live in… Read more »
I will have to figure this comment out in the morning.
I have no idea. Or as I would I say I have not formed a rock solid idea either way. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. “the Bible tells us God SUPERNATURALLY created the earth AGED,” “show exegetically” What do you mean by AGED? Dinosaurs never existed just the fossils? Fossils in rocks are aged creation? You see where I am going. You ask OEC to show… Read more »
John, Why do I say God created the earth aged? Stars form and live and die. In the beginning stars were already bored and shining light. Vegetation doesn’t start out [today] as an already mature plant. It starts from a seed and grows. Fish in the sea and animals on the land all grow. Humans start as babies. They have to learn to walk and talk. But Adam started as an adult. Eve started as an adult. The trees were already ripe with fruit. The animals already grown and moving about. Birds and bugs flying from the start. Isn’t this… Read more »
John, Exodus 20 tells us: 8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed… Read more »
Thanks Mike for your reply. I am just starting to look into the Omphalos hypothesis view of a YEC. Here is the major issue I see so far. God created a deceptive world. Trees have rings at creation. Fossils are not real. God must have known this would mislead observers. Yet Romans 1:20 says: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been… Read more »
I have heard the idea that “God created a deceptive world” and it seems rather over-stated.
The very first thing God did was tell people when and how he created the world. The very first thing!
In view of this, those who would accuse God (not you!) should quench their rash words.
John, Okay I know you are not accusing God of deception, but rather saying since God is not deceptive how should tree rings be explained. here is a problem that I see: Science has to assume many things in order to reach an hypothesis. Ithaca to assume things about the evidence and it has to assume things about how the evidence even came about. It also has to assume that the world was ‘worked’ the same way both at creation, before the flood, and after the flood [since it acknowledges neither the flood or the creation event]. So science assumes… Read more »
Mike, As I said previously “I do believe in 6 day creation and a basic 24 hour clock window.” What I am asking you is do you conclude your YEC conclusions on Omphalos hypothesis. Ken says his article is based on this hypothesis. “Ken Hamrick says September 2, 2015 at 9:24 pm In case they haven’t noticed, I’m not really presenting the YEC arguments, but the Omphalos argument. Unlike YEC, I’m not debating the old-earth evidence, but arguing that it has no bearing on how recent God created. Still, they have just as much reason to avoid the argument.” I… Read more »
John,
As to tree rings and fossils, and to other physical evidence:
Evidence is not proof.
Evidence needs to be evaluated in the light of other evidence and known facts and offered testimonies.
In this case, all the evidence is not yet in. Not even all the physical evidence.
But we do have an offered testimony that we should give great weight to: God’s.
Mike,
“But we do have an offered testimony that we should give great weight to: God’s.”
I knew that before the article was written. I knew that before I read the comments. I just tried to engage with you on your points, the way you thought one should and tried to understand the hypothesis better.
Always enjoy reading your comments Mike, you bring a lot to the table at Voices.
John,
Thanks for your compliments.
I knew you knew that about His testimony.
I wasn’t trying to offend.
In fact, i was writing past you in a way to some of the others, who ALSO know God’s great testimony, not to inform them of it, but to simply bring it to their emembrance, and to emphasis its preeminence.
“”Fossils in rocks are aged creation?”” How do fossils translate to a long time? Fossils are created relatively quickly, other wise there would be nothing to fossilize. Some fossils are recent. All fossils–at least that I have studied–occur because of some catastrophic event. I’m not sure how fossils help with the date of rocks. Also, some fossils, such as of animals known to the Native Americans, exist in rock some geologists (the majority opinion) say is millions of years old. I know people say dinosaurs existed millions of years before man, but based upon what evidence? What is the counter… Read more »
John, I am glad you are trying to understand the argument better. Even if you disagreed, you would not be my enemy but my brother. The YEC argument seeks to go toe to toe with the OEC argument on how to evaluate the physical evidence. The view i am putting forth, and that Ken seems to be as well, is that the physical evidence is skewed because God created the earth aged. And i am also putting forth the idea that the evidence is skewed because of the fall [and thus the curse on the earth], and the flood [and… Read more »
I can’t believe I’m using valuable time to respond to this line of debate except to say that if you cannot believe what God says, then you need to get out of the ministry! Our denomination is decreasing in influence and size while my brothers spend time fussing about which one sounds the most “seminarian!” My brothers, there are men and women, boys and girls within a stone’s throw of most of your churches that have not had a face to face witness by a down to earth christian believer! You and I are the ones to be that witness!… Read more »
David, I’m glad to hear that you desire to be a witness to the lost. What if one of them asks you about creation and the 6 days? What if one asks you about other topics like Mormonism and Islam? What if they say they are a Catholic and they follow Christ’s vicar, the pope? Sometimes a witness has to earn a wearing before they are listened to. Oh by the way David, have you read Paul’s epistles in the New Testament? Or Peter’s? Or what James had to say? They didn’t sound at all like what you had to… Read more »
David Copeland, You are right to be concerned for the lost. But consider that in war, there is more to be concerned with than personal combat between soldiers. Strategic interaction between armies is a necessary consideration. What if MacArthur in the Korean War had abandoned strategic considerations and said, “Forget this Inchon landing idea and just give me a rifle so I can shoot the enemies beside my fellow soldiers”? Today, the enemy has already accomplished his own Inchon landing by defeating in its own eyes the legitimacy of the Bible with its self-assured certainty that evolution and billions of… Read more »
It’s amazing how someone can bring up the fact that issues like these cause division among Gods people and then so many of god’s people can prove that statement 100% true. If I’m not mistaken I’m pretty sure I just read that someone said that God’s word, by it self, is not sufficient for witnessing to the lost. It may not have been worded that way but that is what was said. It’s not our job to know everything that could ever be known. It is our job to hear the word, know the word, do the word, share the… Read more »
Ken, always an interesting discussion, and an important one that I am finding especially interesting to the younger generation.
In light of the OEC theory, what is the most profound way that “death” is handled in your opinion. With billions of years of non-death related time relative to Adam and Eve’s appearance as one adheres to the fundamentals of OEC theory, are there any implications discussed as those accumulated years of non-death were in existence?
I was wondering if you found any research on the impact of non-death.
Chris, I’m not sure I understand your question. OEC tends to see death in Rom. 5:12 as human death and not the start of death in general. Of course, this is inconsistent with the fact that Christ will in the end redeem creation itself and death in general will be vanquished. Biblically, death in all its forms entered the world when man sinned. This requires the Omphalos argument to be modified, such that God brought parts of the chronology of the natural processes (as we know them) into existence separately—suspending the bringing of the principle of death and entropy into… Read more »
Chris, As far as dinosaurs, fossils and evolution go, my argument is that it doesn’t really matter. I used to be staunchly YEC. But recently, as I considered the falling away of most of the Evangelical youth when they go to college, and looked into the strength (not necessarily the validity) of the evolutionary arguments, I pondered the question of what I would do if evolution were eventually proven as true. Looking to Scripture, I realized that what God has said in His word must be absolutely affirmed; but what He has not specified must be reasoned from the Scripture.… Read more »
I know I dropped out of the conversation and I’m not sure I want to jump back in except to say this: If you read the article Ken is responding to, that pretty much sums up my position, even to his experiences as a former staunch YECer.
Sometime I’d like to see a conversation on the consequences of the Omphalos argument, like dismantling the entire scientific creationism industry and, I would assume, making certain areas of science off limits for Christians.
Bill, I don’t know that creation science is an industry. Nonetheless, it need not be dismantled. While I do think they go to far in some things, they also serve a purpose in showing some places where secular science has over reached and been over confident. Creation science has made some valid points against the other side. But as Dr. Keathley’s article points out, there have been failures as well. I think those failures directly result from trying to prove a young earth when it was actually an old earth that God recently created. No areas of science would be… Read more »
“””they go to far””” I think the “they” might be misleading. The Creation-Science movement is not monolithic. There are varying views expressed across a number of scientific issues.
There is no “they” who speak for all YEC.
Bill, Science off limits to Christians? if it is, it is not because of the Christian position they hold. It would be because the ‘open’ minded scientific community would make their lives miserable in doing their jobs or research. Science learns incredible things about life and its discoveries have aided mankind in countless ways. There is much truth to be learned by scientists. But when science steps out of its role, as an explorer of what it can test and discern, and steps into a metaphysical role to explain things about which it has no ability to grasp or fathom,… Read more »
Let’s settle this deception charge once and for all. Show me one situation where the supernatural (or the results thereof) can be looked at (or into) while assuming the natural and deception not be the result. Can any of you show me a single one? You cannot! If you stood outside the tomb of Christ Himself on the third day, and saw Him alive with your own eyes— while assuming the natural—you would have assumed that He must not have actually been dead and He’s now recovered. Can’t you see? The difference between being deceived and seeing the truth is… Read more »
Every man knows enough from creation to recognize a supernatural Creator-God. So then, what excuse have they for investigating that creation using naturalistic presuppositions? Knowing a supernatural God created it all, what excuse have they for searching out natural causes to find the supposed age of the world?
—And what excuse have we, who believe in and intimately know that supernatural God—for being convinced that those natural causes can indeed tell us the age of the world?
Ken, I believe that these “naturalistic assumptions” seem popular today, and probably influence some of our favorite theologians. I believe as you have intimated that faith is stronger when moored around the creator, not the natural. “Jesus said to them, “He wrote this commandment for you because of your hard hearts. But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female.” The creator speaks in much different terms than some of the theologians that agree with naturalistic assumptions. God has always been concerned with time, created time (Genesis), the right time (Hebrews), and the final time (Revelation). Our… Read more »
I don’t much like long, LONG replies but here is one anyway. Both YE and OE theories require certain presuppositions. YE is a theistic position, while OE is scientific; but that is not the entirety of the basis for either. YE requires a certain criteria of interpretation, more specifically that the Genesis account of creation (1) was meant to address a scientific interpretation which was thousands of years in the future from when it was written, (2) that it was meant to be taken literally, (3) that the English word “day” (meaning 24 hours) is precisely what was meant by… Read more »
BTW, I have to reject the idea that God recently created an old earth. Taken to what I see as its logical conclusion, it makes God into some being who at least facilitates error and fallacy, and that is only one thin step removed from Him lying. We all know that cannot happen.
John
John, If you examined the cooked fish left over from the feeding of the 5000, would you , by that examination be able to determine that the history of that food was supernatural? I don’t think you could. If you drank the wine late at the party at Cana that moments ago was just water, would have your reaction been the same as the others -that the wine served late was better than the wine served earlier? I think so. Would you, like them be fooled as to the origin of the wine? Yes I think you would. Inherent in… Read more »
John, You said: BTW, I have to reject the idea that God recently created an old earth. Taken to what I see as its logical conclusion, it makes God into some being who at least facilitates error and fallacy, and that is only one thin step removed from Him lying. We all know that cannot happen. Evidently, this bears repeating: Let’s settle this deception charge once and for all. Show me one situation where the supernatural (or the results thereof) can be looked at (or into) while assuming the natural and deception not be the result. Can any of you… Read more »
Seems to me there is a lot of difference between Jesus’ Resurrection (which is witnessed to throughout the New Testament, as well as prophesied in the Old) and the presuppositions necessary to conclude that the earth and entire universe is about 6000 years old, and even more than are necessary to conclude that God created an “old earth” 6000+/- years ago. Consequently, I do not accept that your analogy is valid. And if God did create an “old earth” some 6000 years ago–why? Actually, it sounds straight out of “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe”. I find it disappointing that… Read more »
John, Three points you raised. As to the last point: the last post you made before was answered by both Ken and I. Do you mean the one before that? Next point: the 6000 year old earth and also one created aged. Actually John, my position doesn’t say exactly when the earth was created, although I lean to 6-10,000 years. But my position is that it was created in 6 regular days.The 6000 years is arrived at from looking at the genealogies the Bible gives us. In that God gave us those years with a purpose. And certainly a possible… Read more »
First off, we may be talking past each other. Consequently, let me put it this way: 1) Do you agree or disagree that to have an opinion about either YE or OE requires certain presuppositions? Why or why not? 2) Do you agree or disagree that to hold to YE requires the four (theological) presuppositions I named (and this may not be exhaustive)? Why or why not? 3) Do you agree or disagree that to hold to OE requires the two (scientific) presuppositions I named (and this may not be exhaustive)? Why or why not? 4) Do you agree or… Read more »
Bill Mac asked about the implications of the Omphalos view. He also said that he more or less was in agreement with what Dr. Keathley wrote in his paper. So I thought I would respond to Dr. Keathley. Re: the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry, written by Dr. Kenneth Keathley in 2013, entitled, “Confessions of a Disappointed Young-Earther.” Under his subsection titled: Implications of the Omphalos Argument, Dr Keathley writes: “First, an appearance of age is an appearance of a non-actual history. Gosse demonstrated this with a litany of examples. Fish scales, tortoise plates, bird feathers, deer antlers, elephant… Read more »
So which is it guys? YEC, or Omphalos (which is just a modified YEC). Are the scientific dating techniques wrong, ala YEC, or are they right, but just reflect a change in reality from the mind of God to actual reality, ala Omphalos? I suspect you’re going to want to say both, because if you choose Omphalos, you still have a problem because scientists have found remnants of human civilizations over 10000 years old. (if you follow what Gosse is saying). And if no scientific endeavor is out of bounds for a young earth Christian, what does he or she… Read more »
Bill Mac, maybe it was over 65 million years in the ground–the dinosaur fossil?
Possibly, but that’s not an option open to YECers.
But neither is 20M.
Bill, Good questions. Q1 answer: I’m a belly button guy. [short BB] The exact age of the earth is only a calculated guess. So anything ‘young’ as compared to millions of years seems right. And here is the problem with millions of years: 1] No one advocating that position is advocating that man has been alive that long, thus negating the 6 day creation story. 2] What is the point of creating a mature earth if you are going to let it age? Bill’s Q2: “Are the scientific dating techniques wrong, ala YEC, or are they right, but just reflect… Read more »
The term “ideal time” was used in Keathley’s article (attributed to Gosse, I believe).
Bill,
I’m sorry.
I missed that.
Bill, Obviously, I’m going more with the Omphalos argument. There are evidences of an old world, even if we just look to the stars that are millions of light-years away. But that doesn’t mean that I trust the dating methods of secular science. It simply becomes a non-issue with me. If anyone insists that something is older than 6 to 10 thousand years, then I insist that it was created out of nothing as part of the aged world that God created. I do seriously doubt that any “human civilizations” have been discovered that are rightly dated as older than… Read more »
What you/we believe does not matter in the least. Therefore, you should pick a belief that you like and move on. There are people that need your help–and as I understand it, that does matter.
In 1970 I was employed as an instructor in history at South Carolina State College (now a university), and I begin joining professional societies, i.e.,The Organization of American Historians, The Association for The Study of Negro Life and History (now the African American Historians Association, and others. I also chose to join the Creation Research Society, having taken well over a 100 5×8 notecards on Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb’s The Genesis Flood. That research made quite an impression on me. I already had some awareness of the fact that the biblical account does not square at all… Read more »
correction above, I began joining
Ken, It is late at night where I am, and I am just now reading and processing your OP as well as some of the comments. The following might not be totally coherent but some thoughts concerning this discussion. 1. Concerning my position: I believe scripture clearly affirms creation ex nihilio. Anyone who denies such is out of bounds with orthodoxy. I also believe evolution that results in different species is incompatible with scripture. Concerning the age of the earth I characterize myself as agnostic (I don’t know). If pushed I would probably indicate the earth as being thousands of… Read more »
William, Thanks or your output. I can’t answer for Ken, but the idea that recent created things are also created with a contrived history really misses the mark. The wine would look and taste and chemically be consistent with any other wine. That’s not a contrived history, its a hidden history. Not hidden to all, of course, for some knew its history, and we by faith also know it. Neither does the creation of Adam mean a contrived childhood. Certainly some advocates do believe Adam had a belly button. I do not. And if God created both adult birds and… Read more »
William Carpenter, 1. Concerning my position: I believe scripture clearly affirms creation ex nihilio. Anyone who denies such is out of bounds with orthodoxy. I also believe evolution that results in different species is incompatible with scripture. Concerning the age of the earth I characterize myself as agnostic (I don’t know). If pushed I would probably indicate the earth as being thousands of years old created as a mature earth, but older than YECers want to allow. I believe dinosaurs did walk the earth and the scientific discoveries of fossils indicate living organisms that at one time lived on the… Read more »
William Carpenter, 2. Concerning science: I am enjoyed science. If I had not been called into the ministry I would probably have had career in a scientific/engineering field. I believe all truth is God’s truth and that in the end God will be vindicated. There is a valid theological view that exists (even though we might not know of it or had someone espouse it yet) that adequately explains all scientific observations and scriptural affirmations. That does mean that along the way our interpretations of scientific observations and scriptural affirmations will be challenged, and we will discover our interpretations of… Read more »
“We should be careful with saying, ‘All truth is God’s truth,’ as some truth is natural truth and some truth is revealed truth—and the two will not necessarily accord.” I am not careful in saying such. God is Truth, and we as Christian’s bear witness to the truth. Some truth is revealed by general revelation and some truth is revealed by special revelation. Both are God’s truth and they will ALWAYS accord. Now then to my biggest problem with your depictions. You consistently conflate scientific OBSERVATION (general revelation of observing of the truth of what exists and how it interacts)… Read more »
William, You are correct that scientific observation and scientific explanation are not the same thing. As you’ve explained it, I would agree with you, in that IF Lazarus could have been observed while dead, that scientific observation would have agreed with the truth of supernatural event. However, NO ONE but God observed creation; therefore, any who want to leverage OE ideas by claiming that scientific observation and revealed truth must accord may be confusing observation of the supernatural event with observation of the evidences remaining after the event. If our scientist sent into the past to observe Lazarus arrived late… Read more »
I only have two replies to this comment that essentially sums up our differences in opinion on this matter. 1. You state: “THEREIN lies the danger in saying that all truth is God’s truth: because science tells men what is true when in fact it is only what they think is true…” If it is in fact only what they think is true then it is not TRUTH. My claim is not that the opinions of men as informed by science is truth. Men can readily be deceived. My claim is that what general revelation reveals is truth. 2. You… Read more »
William Carpenter, 3. Concerning time: I think Einsteinian physics has rendered our understanding of time to be problematic. I do not believe that one can develop a theory using relativity to account for six billion years in six days. I do think that relativity has indicated we need to rethink how we talk about time in terms of absolutes, especially upon a cosmological scale. What I mean is that time is a dimension that is a part of this creation, and is not as easily definable as we want to make it be. When the transcendent which exists outside of… Read more »
William Carpenter, 4. Concerning Genesis: Your assumption in the OP is that OEC primary objection to a literal reading of Genesis is due to supposed scientific evidence of the age of the earth (which interpretation I find problematic as they keep pushing the date back). However, many of us also take issue with the manner in which Genesis 1 describes the creation. What I mean is that the account is definitely from a geocentric worldview. I think our problem is in trying to read Genesis 1 as a scientific description of creation. It defies such depiction. When Genesis describes the… Read more »
Generally speaking we are in agreement here with how the text reads. The main difference in our approach is that you describe it as a historical account. Regardless of your attempts to neatly pull science into an isolated category where don’t have to deal with it on the issue, history is just as much a description of natural occurrences in the world. It operates under the same principles. I observe the natural evidence (general revelation) of events that occurred and use that evidence to describe what happened. Concerning Genesis 1 again, as you state “Who really needs to know the… Read more »
William, Ken can surely answer for himself,…but when you state Thus it becomes a theological problem of reconciling the scientific or historical observations of the history of the earth with the special revelation scriptural affirmations concerning God’s creation.” I don’t really think it is a theological problem at all. There is absolutely no evidence that science has postured that is difficult for the Genesis account to absorb. The problem, I believe, is the faithfulness of preaching to the miraculous works of God…..not the reconciliation to the natural. That is a discovery channel endeavor. Young folks (and older young folks 🙂… Read more »
We are in agreement Chris. When I say it becomes a theological problem, I do not mean it is problematic for theology to figure out, but that it is a question that theology has to solve. Much the same as 2 + 2 is a math problem for math to reconcile. It’s not problematic but it is a question that centers in the realm of math. In the end, as I stated above, God will be vindicated as there is a theological explanation that accounts what scripture affirms in Genesis 1 and what scientific evidence can be observed in the… Read more »
BTW, I agree with the comment on uber scientific over dramatization. Such are examples of bad science not that science is bad.
I see your point William…thx!
William, As I see it, there are two kinds of attacks on the authority of Scripture. There is the kind that calls into question the inerrancy, as if we cannot trust the Bible to accurately convey the truth that God wants to communicate. Then there is also the kind that affirms an inerrant text, but calls into question our ability to understand it, as if God does not have the ability, when using human language, to accurately convey to our limited minds the truth that He wants to communicate. I reject both. Our limited minds can never comprehend the whole… Read more »
In fact much of scripture is not historical account. There are psalms, proverbs, wisdom, law and letters. Each are inerrant in what they affirm, and although they sometimes talk about historical events, their aim is not to give a historical account of events as opposed to historical books such as Samuel and Kings. The claim of whether Genesis 1 is an inspired inerrant historical account or an inspired inerrant literary account is what is debated here. My claim is that Moses and his immediate audience (the Israelites leaving Egypt) did not have the scientific knowledge (hence the reason Gen. 1… Read more »
William, You said, “Therefore God inspired Moses to write an account that focuses not on scientifically how the world was created, but theologically who created it and what type creation he created.” First I wish to thank all in this discussion,especially those that disagree with me that it is civil and respectful both of others and of our Lord. Second, I agree with you William as far as you went. The world was not scientifically created. So therefore why would Genesis focus on that? But it seems that many people including scientists [understandably] and even Christians [scratch head] are trying… Read more »
William, you said, “God is quite capable of revealing what he wants to us (although we as sinners often have our minds clouded), but sometimes we find ourselves asking for more than he chose to reveal to us.” Quite true. And what has God revealed to us about the origin of the earth? That He created by the word of His mouth and that, He created it in six days, and telling us what he created each day. And He inspired Moses as well to refer to these six days in explaining the Sabbath rest in Exodus 20: “Remember the… Read more »
Ken: I must disagree with you about the idea of God’s use of simple language and our ability to understand it. First, it fails to recognize that the simple also involves the profound, and it is here that we encounter our difficulties in grasping what God has to say. In part, this is due, perhaps, to the fact that what He is speaking is reserved for a later time and a later people. A friend of mine thought a clear mountain stream was only 2-3 feet deep, because he could see the grains of sand rolling along the bottom. What… Read more »
William Carpenter, I reject your juxtaposition of a scientific explanation of creation and a theological one, as if those were the only choices. Gen. 1 is clearly a chronological-historical account to anyone who gets their clues only from the text and does not import any ideas or data from outside the text. An historical account tells us what happened, and not merely the why or the who of a supposedly theological account. You may dismiss the historical accuracy as unreliable due to your claim that we do not know how reliable the text was meant to be, but that excuse… Read more »
Dr. Willingham,
The text may contain deeper truths to mine, but never at the expense of nullifying the simplicity. When God said that He created light “and evening and morning were the first day,” there may indeed be some deep truths hidden in there—but nothing that would change the fact that God created light on the first 24-hour day.
Ken: I was not contending for an old earth view point, but, rather, the depth in SIMPLICITY. I hold to a six day creation, etc., as you do. Sometimes the text is transparent as in the case of the creation account and the days involved, resulting in a young age which while mature, I think, did not show the signs of aging until after the fall, when the second law of thermodynamics kicked in. Even so a simple text, like the simple formulas of science that the scientists strive for, make have a great depth that will not yield except… Read more »
Mike, here is how I exegete the text. This is a brief exegesis, but it should suffice for the discussion here. Any exegesis needs to consider the context. The context Moses is confronting is ancient near east creation myths that tend to center around the gods battling with one another, and accidentally or as a form of animosity towards one another creating various elements of this universe. The elements themselves often are either the gods themselves or byproducts of the gods actions. One of the major concerns of such myths and the culture at large is that of chaos, as… Read more »
William,
Thank you for your answer.
I will read it again and answer in a new comment stream.
William Carpenter, If we surrender the historical certainty of the creation account and instead understand the text as merely a literary response to some local myths, then we must in the process cast doubt on the historicity of the Adam and Eve story as well. And if sin and death did not enter the world by one man than what is the likelihood that redemption and immortality can come through one man? Treating the Bible as merely literature of a certain time and place is a method suited well to removing the authority of anything it declares that might have… Read more »
William Carpenter, 5. Concerning a mature earth: I am sympathetic to view of God creating a mature earth/universe in the sense that I believe when he created it, he created it intact and all elements in mature states. However, what you argue for is not only a mature creation, but one with a previous history. To use your examples, you don’t just argue for Adam to have been created only as a fully-grown adult male, but as one who had a contrived childhood and life previously. Likewise when Jesus turned the water into wine, you don’t just argue that he… Read more »
There is a difference between something maturely formed and something maturely formed with evidence of a history that did not exist. Take Adam as an example. When he was created he was a fully formed adult male. He had all the physical characteristics of a full grown male. Granted if one saw him shortly after creation he would assume that man had gone through the normal development of a human being. However, if he looked for evidence of that childhood, it would not exist. There would be no scars from the time he cut himself as a child. No wear… Read more »
William, There is a difference in how I see Adam being created and how I see the earth and universe. You are right that I see the universe as created with the marks and scars of an actual history. But as for Adam, as for Adam, as you say, there is no need for scars and such, only the need for maturity. But contrary to your argument, that maturity is itself a testimony to a history of growth and maturing. As I said before, I don’t see Adam as having any parentage or previous life. God could create an ancient… Read more »
I do not see one of Gods attributes to be one of deception. The fulfillment on the virgin birth was fulfillment of prophesy, not deception. Along with the appearance of an angel to Joseph. With the addition of many biblical pre and post announcements of Christ virgin birth. This is not deception, it is fulfillment of Gods word. I believe you have Biblical reasons Ken for YEC. Not so much for supporting the Omphalos argument. Enjoyed reading your article and comments Ken, I just won’t be promoting the Omphalos argument. Although you did give me lots of information so I… Read more »
William Carpenter, In conclusion, as I said to Chris earlier, as far as dinosaurs, fossils and evolution go, my argument is that it doesn’t really matter. I used to be staunchly YEC. But recently, as I considered the falling away of most of the Evangelical youth when they go to college, and looked into the strength (not necessarily the validity) of the evolutionary arguments, I pondered the question of what I would do if evolution were eventually proven as true. Looking to Scripture, I realized that what God has said in His word must be absolutely affirmed; but what He… Read more »
Ken, I agree with you once again. My professor of geology at the University of Texas was the guy that surfaced the theory of the meteor in the gulf, a theory that is still a hallmark of the program at least since the early late 70s. I actually liked the professor. He was very opened minded, and at one point in my challenge to him about the origin of the jurassic layer, he admitted that a flood theory would better explain his view of what happened. But, since he could not find enough evidence of a flood (much like Keathley… Read more »
Chris,
Just as an FYI: Here in North Dakota the Oil is under a large layer of Salt. This in and of itself does not prove the flood happened it just is another pointer to the story of the flood in the bible. Do you know if the Texas oil is under a layer of salt?
John K,…been away from the petroleum industry for some time now…. but in Texas there are amazing differences in the depth of wells in production,…from very shallow (could almost kick the ground and get some) to many thousands of feet.
I’m not really sure about how the salt layer exists within….. interesting though.
In my research while in the UT class, there are loads of data that show fossils just below the Jurassic layer were escaping something. In other words…many critters moving in the same direction….which as my professor suggested is a strong pointer toward a flood mechanism, where it is more prolonged than a meteor impact and fits in nicely with a more gradual disaster requiring water.
Along the present Gulf Coast, there are several salt domes (rather than layers of salt). The traditional easy place to find oil was near the top of a salt dome. Presently, oil and chemicals are often stored in some of the domes. The Government’s Strategic Oil Reserve is stored in caverns that have been washed out of the domes. Bryan Mound is the local storage site. Oil is found in other places too, not just in salt domes.
After 3 days and 167 comments, NOT ONE Old-Earther has engaged the following argument:
Can God create a world that is already aged?
If so, then why do Old-Earthers proceed as if He could not?
And if they claim that He could but DID NOT, then it was not evidence that told them that.
Thus, they lose the weight of an argument based on evidence.
At least we all have shown, once again, that we can have a vigorous debate without rancor. Thanks to all involved…
Most of us think that God is not a deceiver. Thus he did not create a lie for us to fall into or follow after. What you see is what God created.
Any time that one does not believe what God has said, he falls into his own lie.
Bennett, [and anyone else] Enough already with this deceiving stuff. The PLAIN reading of Genesis is being rejected, and by those rejecting God’s plain words [most if not all give no Biblical cause], they want to slander those who do accept God’s plain words as having a God that is a deceiver! The truth is the natural CANNOT grasp the supernatural and from the natural’s perspective, the claims of the supernatural seems deceptive. So be rebuked you raisers of deception, for you show yourselves as putting more stock and credence in the natural’s perspective over and above the plain testimony… Read more »
Mike, how is constructing a world complete with a history that is intended to fool any observer anything but deception?
It seemed to me that this was a popular thesis of many of the comments on this thread.
You have failed to engage then arguments already given. Read the article. How is raising a man from the dead, reconstructing his body with a healthy condition that is intended to fool any observer (who did not witness the resurrection) into thinking that he’d never died anything but deception? The same charge can be made against any miracle.
Bennett, You must be late to the discussion and have not yet had the time to read what has been written. Evidence isn’t proof. And yet you take the evidence the world offers as proof, even though there is three major mitigating factors against that. 1] The world’s evidence is changing, Their understanding is changing. And they are not yet done gathering evidence. And yet despite those uncertainties, you render judgment against God. 2] The natural only sees from a natural perspective. Science can not grasp the miraculous and the supernatural. So as they gather evidence and render opinion on… Read more »
You are right that I see the universe as created with the marks and scars of an actual history.
Bennett,
you said,
“You are right that I see the universe as created with the marks and scars of an actual history.”
So do I.
But the difference is I start with God’s testimony and believe it.
And you start with man’s testimony and believe it
And Bennett,
When challenged to show that you do start with God’s testimony you so far have taken a pass.
I would mention again that the creation might appear mature, in our terms, but it would also look new. The aging factor does not come into play until after the fall. The second law of thermodynamics apparently works only after sin enters the world.
James,
It looked new THEN,. But we are now looking at it 6-10000 years or so later. If we had Adam’s body we would see no belly button. But we would see a grown man.
So from a casual glance or perspective we would see an aging or mature world.
But for those who believe God’s testimony, as you do, they are not deceived, for they use His testimony as the grounds to evaluate the rest of the evidence.
Sadly many are using the less sure evidence to evaluate God’s testimony.
Bennett and John,
Put up or cease.
Either show Biblically how the creation account of 6 days is the wrong exegete, OR
Show how the natural’s perspective can grasp supernatural acts.
Mike, I have shown that in order to reach the literal six twenty-four hour day creation period, as well as creation occurring some 6000 years ago (I believe Archbishop Ussher said it was in 4004 BC, in the early autumn) requires one to make certain presuppositions about the text which are not themselves part of the text. I named the four I see. Remove those presuppositions, and/or make different ones, and the whole young earth exegesis falls like a house of cards. You may not like that exegesis, but how can you help but agree that with different presuppositions, the… Read more »
Funny! I was introduced to the Hebrew Alphabet by a friend who had been raised an Orthodox Jew and had been saved and called to be a Baptist minister. He said the Hebrew is indicative of a 24 hour day, and there is no basis for anything else. He was a graduate of the Univ. of Md, cum laud, John’s College, M.A.L.S., magnum cum laud, M.Div.; D. Min. SEBTS, both cum laud. While Hebrew is not my forte, I do have the required six hours for the M.Div. with languages (which the libs of SEBTS would not give me, because… Read more »
Mike, Ken is the one who states he uses Omphalos hypothesis in this article. You support his arguments. If anyone needs to be rebuked and needs to put up or cease it is you and Ken. You both write with an omniscient point of view on this subject. You turn out to be the empty clanging cymbal putting forth this Omphalos argument and whenever someone challenges you, you act offended that they don’t understand scripture. So be rebuked you raisers of deception, for you show yourselves as putting more stock and credence in your perspective over and above the plain… Read more »
John,
That’s quite a feat of spin-doctoring. I have found that the Omphalos argument fits my view precisely because its starting point is Scripture. God said He created it all in six literal days, we begin there, and there’s no reason to change our interpretation of that text.
Evidently, this bears repeating: Let’s settle this deception charge once and for all. Show me one situation where the supernatural (or the results thereof) can be looked at (or into) while assuming the natural and deception not be the result. Can any of you show me a single one? You cannot! If you stood outside the tomb of Christ Himself on the third day, and saw Him alive with your own eyes— while assuming the natural—you would have assumed that He must not have actually been dead and He’s now recovered. Can’t you see? The difference between being deceived and… Read more »
God did not directly make things appear to be what they are not. Rather, He made things that really were old in nature from the first moment of existence. It’s not that they merely appeared to be old in nature—they really were old in nature. Men who look into this nature with the naturalistic assumption that how old something is in nature must correlate to length of existence deceive themselves. Such an assumption is skeptical toward the possibility of supernatural creation. These are not merely “rational” observers, as you put it, but skeptical observers who begin at their unbelief. There… Read more »
You seem to bounce between Aged Earth Omphalos hypothesis. And Mature Earth creationist views.
Omphalos argument has been debunked in Christian circles even in its day.Tress had rings and fossils were created at time of creation showing a false history, Jesus created wine that was aged.
And Mature Earth creationist views. Mature earth creation is one of the accepted view points. Trees had no rings, Adam had no navel, and Jesus created wine that was mature.
I am surprised you do not see the difference, and do not acknowledge the differences.
Errata: Line 8 in reply to Ken, should be might, not make.
William, Thanks again for taking the time to exegete the creation passage. You said: “Days 1-3 show God separating different things. God brings order out of chaos. Note that what God is separating are tied to the cultural illustrations of chaos: light separated from darkness, the seas separated from each other, and land from the sea. The purpose of such revelation is to tell us that chaos is not a concern. God has authority over such things, and God is a God of order who will maintain stability in His creation.” Here is my question for you, William, if God… Read more »
If anyone here disagrees with the position explained in the above article, then please, engage the argument in that article. If you disagree, but don’t really have an argument to bring, then there’s nothing wrong with admitting that, either.
The miracles of Jesus do not fall into the same category (subject to the charge of deception) because they were witnessed first hand, and were not related to us in a poetic, call and response type of literature. The disciples saw the few fish, and then saw the many. Jesus was verified dead, and then verified alive (even the wounds had not healed). The water was seen before the wine.
…and yet the guests thought the best wine had been saved for last! You really seem to have a mental block on this, Bill.
When the insults come out, I think we’ve taken this as far as we can. You’ve declared your interpretation of Gen 1 virtually inerrant, clamped on to an argument that allows you to claim a young/old earth and much of the sciences valid and invalid at the same time, and declared victory. You started with a particular interpretation of Gen 1 that you think is inviolate, and have constructed a theory around it. That’s fine, people do it all the time. There are lots of theories of why Gen 1 is literal but looks like it isn’t. Any one of… Read more »
I’ve read Ken’s stuff on his site and likely had more exposure to strident YE promotion than is healthy. I have no problem living in harmony with and working with YEarthers, even those who are most intense on the subject. It appears to me that the indispensible element in many YE polemicists approach is that any departure from YE dogma and accepted interpretations of Scripture is tantamount to slow heresy if not actual, fully formed heresy. YE equals believing Scripture. OE equals not believing Scripture. I’m back to the question of the other day: Why Is it that our common… Read more »
William, I can’t speak for kKn or any YEC other than myself. Since God created in 6 days [your exegesis is agnostic on that], how old is the earth? Well, 6 days is 6 days whether 6000 years ago or 60 million years ago. I hold to a 6 day creation as a YEC not because of the creation story itself but the genealogies in the Bible. But I recognize that these may not be complete and cover every year or even decade or even century. But the problem is that no OEC or no secular scientist is holding to… Read more »
AS TO OEC NOT BELIEVING SCRIPTURE: Most every OEC I have read denies the 6 day creation event. Why? Most of them, if not all, do so because of the scientific evidence. Not because the Scripture itself warrants such disbelief in that theory but because in seeking to reconcile Scripture with science, they start with science and seek to make the Scriptures fit. And what is their argument against the 6 day creation Scripture theory: It doesn’t fit the science. Now the science has two strikes against it: 1] It can never, by its nature, measure and grasp and explain… Read more »
It seems that this discussion is reaching that point where it’s getting increasingly personal and people seem to be saying the same things over and over.
Let’s be careful not to let the discussion evolve into something bad (see what I did there?)
Dave, what it’s your view on this?
I’m not sure the point of the Omphalos argument. If science is useless in determining the age of the earth; if scientists are just a big bunch of God-hating atheists with an agenda and no scruples, integrity, or conscience, then why try to reconcile Gen. 1 with science (which is what Omphalos does)? Why not just write off science completely? Look, the Omphalos argument allows you to keep a literal reading of Gen. 1 and still look like you believe in science, and that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean a literal reading of Gen. 1 is right. Just because you’ve… Read more »
Bill, The gold standard is always to understand what God’s meaning is in the text. That’s why we ought to go with the pain sense reading of any passage first, and only look for some other possibilities if that plain sense reading doesn’t make sense or doesn’t accord with the whole of Scripture. In this case, the only problem that the plain sense encounters is the supposed evidence of an old earth. This is the only reason anyone looks to alternative understandings on this. YEC simply denies the evidence. But if God could create an old earth, then the evidence… Read more »
Correction: “…people have forgotten the reason they were reported to…” should read, “….people have forgotten the reason they were resorted to…”
Bill, dear brother, I thank God you care for His Word. May you continue to walk in His blessings. But I think you are confused. You wrote: “I’m not sure the point of the Omphalos argument. If science is useless in determining the age of the earth; if scientists are just a big bunch of God-hating atheists with an agenda and no scruples, integrity, or conscience, then why try to reconcile Gen. 1 with science (which is what Omphalos does)? Why not just write off science completely?” Can scientists determine the age of the earth? I don’t thinks so. The… Read more »
Dear Parsonsmike: The gold standard is persuasion by the facts of revelation, whatever they are. However, just because we find a clear statement of something in a text that does not automatically make it the gold standard. What we have forgotten is if the rule is true and the exceptions, if the latter are true, constitute the truth. Take for example the idea of the appearance of age. Seeing a man at full maturity is not altogether a meaningful argument, if one has no standard by which to judge the situation. Now consider the age of a man or the… Read more »
In my view (I didn’t come up with it on my own) Gen 1 is an ancient call and response taught from generation to generation, meant to convey, in juxtaposition to the pagan beliefs of the era, that God in fact created all the things that the people of the lands about worshiped. I think it is poetry, not chronology. We know that the Gospels differ in chronology so it’s not without precedent. I don’t think “morning and evening” have a lot of historical significance without sun, moon and stars for example. Without the sun and moon, how can we… Read more »
Dear Bill: The only problem that your view really has is the Bible’s devotion to getting the facts right, setting forth the truth, even if the language is simple and poetic. There was a multivolume work written by a Father Schmidt at the University of Vienna, Austria on the flood legends of the world. While his work has been criticized, there can be no doubt that mankind seems to have in common a consciousness of a deluge in its early history.
Bill, You may not have come up with that view, but whoever did come up with it did so only because of the supposed weight of the physical evidence against a literal, recent-creation understanding. Since God is able to create an old world, then the evidence no longer weighs against the plain sense understanding, so the very reason for resorting to something other exegesis is removed. Not only this, but the OEC view is now shown to be just as fideistic as the Omphalos, since it is just as impossible to prove that a recent creation did NOT happen as… Read more »
Bill, I know you love the Bible. All of you do. I never meant to discredit that in anyone. But sometimes we stray away somewhat from the Word. You said, “In my view (I didn’t come up with it on my own) Gen 1 is an ancient call and response taught from generation to generation, meant to convey, in juxtaposition to the pagan beliefs of the era, that God in fact created all the things that the people of the lands about worshiped.” This is very similar to what William said. But why just “that era”? A beginning step in… Read more »
Mike, You may not have meant to discredit anyone but you sure have tried to MOCK us, and REBUKE us. Both you and Ken. What you will not to do is defend the Omphalos hypothesis and that was what Kens article was about, with the intent to discredit Dr. Kenneth Keathley article. Instead you demand exegesis from commenters about Genesis. As I have stated I have not formed an OEC position or a YEC position. I have formed a biblical position and that is “The Bible is infallible and holds only truths relieved by God. And not All Truths are… Read more »
Mike: Exodus 20 isn’t a problem if the word day is taken in its broader meaning and not locked into a 24 hour period. Are God’s days 24 hours long? Norm Geisler puts it this way “Numbered days need not be solar. Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four hour days. Even if there were no exceptions in the Old Testament, it would not mean that ‘day’ in Genesis 1 could not refer to more than one twenty-four-hour period”
John K., There are many who see Gen2, which is what you speak of above, as not on day 6, but rather a summary type of recounting of Adam’s stay in the Garden. But even if each day in GEN 1 is more than 24 hours long, that idea does not work in conjunction with science. Lets say they are each 10000 years long. How does an eco system work if parts of it are missing for 10k or 20k or more? Still with 10k long days we are talking an earth only 60k old. So lets bump it up… Read more »
Mike, I pointed out a simple, sequential, and literal plain reading of the text using scripture. With simple exegesis. It is what you have been requesting. Why can’t you except scriptures truth? You obfuscate on to other text rather than addressing the text that is presented clearly in scripture. Moses lays down the foundation point and then expands upon it like it is done 100’s if not 1000’s of times in scripture. Remember context of scripture is important, so as you explain your view Moses expands previously in the text on day 1 through 5. So those also need to… Read more »
John K.,
i don’t think you did what you are claiming.
But I can’t get into fully until later, so until then brother, have a blessed day.
John, Chapter 2 opens this way: Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. Now of course Moses nor God wrote in chapters or verses. So we see from vs.1-3 that God is done telling how He created the earth. Now will God… Read more »
John, i do have a question for you, something you wrote that I don’t understand: you said: “Why can’t you except scriptures truth? You obfuscate on to other text rather than addressing the text that is presented clearly in scripture. Moses lays down the foundation point and then expands upon it like it is done 100’s if not 1000’s of times in scripture.” What do you mean by “Moses lays down the foundation point and then expands upon it like it is done 100’s if not 1000’s of times in scripture.”? Do you mean that… No I’ll let you tell… Read more »
Mike, I did exactly what I am claiming. My only exegesis was: “Busy day for Adam to say the least.” The rest is sequential copying of the text placing it in a pertinent sequential order for easy reading for a literal manner interpretation. As you know Moses did not write chapters he wrote sequential inspired text. Mike you know exactly what I mean by: “What do you mean by ““Moses lays down the foundation point and then expands upon it like it is done 100’s if not 1000’s of times in scripture.”” Common now you have studied and are familiar… Read more »
John,
you said,
“I did exactly what I am claiming.
My only exegesis was:
“Busy day for Adam to say the least.”
So you assumed it was all one day.
That’s your exegesis?
Okay John, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Job 38- 42 is my answer: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.” Then Job answered the Lord and said: “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further.” Then Job answered the Lord and said: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what… Read more »
Amen, Bill Mac. Many of those who hold to YEC and/or omphalos seem determined to either imply or outright state that those of us with a different opinion and/or who question their presuppositions are at a minimum discarding Scripture, and are perhaps agnostic or heretical, or not Christian. I would ask them, “Is this not one of those ‘debatable doctrines’ the New Testament speaks of?”
John
John F, No one here has said you are agnostic or a heretic or an unbeliever. And I have stated a couple of times at least that you guys are my brothers who love the Lord and His Word. And that would include you John. But I have also challenged you to show me Biblically why Gen1 is not referring to 24H days, by asking you to show Biblically what it does mean. For my contention is that many have let the world creep in, in this matter, and seek to fit the Bible into the world, whereas in every… Read more »
Mike, I said, “Many,” not “all,” and I appreciate that you have never done so. Even when we disagree (and it is not always so) I appreciate both your comments and the spirit in which you make them. You ask me to show “Biblically” why the days of creation are not 24 hour days. I and others have done so. On one hand, the Hebrew word translated as “day” is not as definitive as the English one. Probably that is because there were only one, perhaps two hundred thousand words in Hebrew (whereas English has several million, I forget the… Read more »
John, or maybe God has done both. He has both answered the surrounding cultures and presented us with exactly what He did. The truth has a way of cutting through the muck. So because one holds the position that there was a need to address the surrounding cultures and their myths doesn’t mean that one can’t also hold to a literal 6 day creation or vice versa. As to ‘yom’, when it is used with a number like 1st or 2nd, it is considered a regular 24H day throughout the Old Testament. Certainly there are times when yom is ysed… Read more »
O as to the stretching out the Heavens, I think we shall find the answers in quantum algebra or whatever lies beyond it that can take in all of the facts and anomalies and put them in some semblance of an adequate interpretation which will survive the falsification efforts that will be made to discredit it. One and perhaps at least two people have offered quantum algebraic theories which consider the earth as only 6-10,000 years. Catastrophism, that is, the flood of Noah, along with other concomitants from space, has yet to be understood. The Montana flood from the glacier… Read more »
I cannot support an old Earth, recently created. I believe Genesis 1:1. I believe “In the beginning,” means the absolute beginning. This makes the Earth a very old Earth, possible billions of years old, maybe trillions of years old. I believe the early Jewish translators knew what “In the beginning,” meant. This view allows me to combat science and explain the Genesis account a lot easier. If we will allow it, by faith, the Bible will explain itself and will become quite clear. Sometimes, I think we can become too scholarly and let faith slip out the door. This is… Read more »
If you’re “combatting science a whole lot easier” then how is it by faith.
Seems your keeping cake and eating it too.
If it’s by faith – it may not always be easily explained by science, right?
Tarheel, Science says we have an old Earth. So does Genesis 1:1. That gives me ammunition to support the creation account instead of evolution which science supports. An old Earth stands a better chance of combating science than an Earth 8,000 years old. The Bible is full of science. I believe it was Job that said the Earth hangs on nothing, that’s science, We read in the Bible about ocean currents, that’s science. I believe one can embrace science and faith together. I think one can believe in science and be a devout Christian. I also believe one can believe… Read more »
Tarheel, I think you are absolutely right. Faith is substance and evidence,….unlike science, which are merely proofs about creation that are subject to change moored by a few sets of laws as we understand them to exist. Science is simply a ways and means (and I like science at lot,…I use it everyday to assist in the invention of stuff), yet it fall grossly short of the same perfection that is demonstrated by Faith. Faith is never subject to change. We should not confuse our students by pretending that science is proving faith. This stage of science seems detailed, especially… Read more »
After actually reading Keathley’s paper more carefully, it does appear he is begging a little for some support of his move from YEC to OEC. I find it interesting that nearing his conclusion he posits “an appearance of age is an appearance of a non-actual history”. That is not really true, unless one leaves out the history of miracles (Discovery Channel). That is kind of Ken’s point it seems. There are numerous biblical accounts that are historical that must contain miracles, or we don’t have a Savior. I’m yet to be convinced that miracles are not historical when they occur… Read more »
Chris,
That is true, not all the evidence is in yet.
Judgment should take in all the evidence.
Would you judge on a murder trial while still waiting on the DNA?
Or in twisting the words of the most important witness?
I As for now will stick with God’s creation as miraculous history, as well.
John F., You said, “Mike, I have shown that in order to reach the literal six twenty-four hour day creation period, as well as creation occurring some 6000 years ago (I believe Archbishop Ussher said it was in 4004 BC, in the early autumn) requires one to make certain presuppositions about the text which are not themselves part of the text. I named the four I see. Remove those presuppositions, and/or make different ones, and the whole young earth exegesis falls like a house of cards. You may not like that exegesis, but how can you help but agree that… Read more »
I posted this on 9/3 at 7;06 PM, “YE requires a certain criteria of interpretation, more specifically that the Genesis account of creation (1) was meant to address a scientific interpretation which was thousands of years in the future from when it was written, (2) that it was meant to be taken literally, (3) that the English word “day” (meaning 24 hours) is precisely what was meant by the Hebrew “yom,” and further (4) that there were no intervening periods between the named “days” or “yoms” of creation. There may be others, but these are what occur to me at… Read more »
Here’s the bottom line: Science says the earth is old, Omphalos says the earth is old. I am convinced to be an old-earther.
Bill Mac, I’d be interested to know how “science” says anything. Science is a way of interacting with the natural world. It is not an entity that speaks “ex cathedra” on all matters pertaining to phenomena. What you might be referring to is a particular philosophical position within the broad category called science. That would be “scientific naturalism.” Science can make observations about the present phenomena, but any conclusions related to something that cannot be tested directly is not strictly science. Science has NOT declared the age of the earth to be old. That is one conclusion some scientists make… Read more »