Ken Hamrick blogs at SBC Open Forum.
Instead of arguing for or against the scientific evidence, or arguing the merits of possible exegetical ways to reconcile Scripture with a billions-of-years chronology, I propose that—for the sake of argument-–we eliminate the evidence question all together. We can do this by accepting all the scientific claims at face value, and still insisting on a recent supernatural creation out of nothing. In other words, we would not posit a young earth, but an old earth that was recently created by divine fiat. When God creates out of nothing, He is not limited to creating things “new.” God created Adam and Eve as physically mature adults and not as infants. He created mature, fruit-bearing trees for immediate food. “He made the stars also”—and made a universe with mature light-trails already existing so that the stars were already visible. All of these imply a time-consuming natural process that was well under way at the first moment of creation. God chose to create not at the beginning of these natural processes, but somewhere in the middle—as if these processes had been going on long before the moment of creation.
Why would God create the world in such a way as to leave no scientific evidence whatsoever of His creating, but leave plenty of evidence that natural processes predated the recent creation found in the natural reading of the Biblical account? Quite simply, God created in such a way that He would not be found by scientific evidence, but only by faith. This is not to say that the created world does not point to God and reveal a Creator to those who are willing to believe, but only that God and His creating cannot be established by any materialistic evidence. There are no “miracle particles” that science can measure to determine that creation by fiat occurred. Any unbelievers who insist on scientific evidence for God’s existence or His creating will find only natural processes. God requires faith.
While many Old-Earth Creationists reject evolution, let’s accept for the sake of argument all the claims of secular science, including the evolutionary hypothesis (as far as it goes). It still remains consonant with the Biblical account of a recent creation that God would supernaturally create (without a trace of evidence) a world already in process—even if that process is evolution. Just as the immediate visibility of the stars at creation can be seen as evidence of a natural process already in progress, the existence of evolutionary processes that were apparently in progress at the moment of creation provides no threat to the recent-creation view. The idea that mankind evolved as the crowning achievement of a billions-of-years-long natural process, and that he was supernaturally created out of nothing around 6000 years ago, are perfectly compatible… if God “stepped into” that process right at the point where modern man would have evolved,* had God allowed everything to develop over billions of years, and created everything out of nothing at that point in the virtual chronology. In short, this proposes that God in creating the world also created a virtual past full of scientific processes that in themselves are capable of explaining all that physically exists—that indeed would have resulted in all that physically exists had God not chosen to miraculously create everything more recently.
Although the visibility of stars implies an ancient past, we trust God’s testimony that He recently created light by fiat. Just so, although the evidences for evolution imply an ancient past full of death, we trust God’s testimony that “through one man, sin entered into the world, and death through sin…” Therefore, while God supernaturally created Adam in what might have been the middle of a virtually ancient process of death and survival of the fittest, He suspended the principle of death in the reality of His created world on the sin of the man that He recently created. Again, God’s revealed truth must be accepted by faith and not proven by scientific evidence. “Cordially embracing all that God reveals” is a matter of conscience, and not a matter of evidence. Not one particle of scientific evidence can prove that God did not create, 6000 years ago, the entire world out of nothing, and with a virtual past already present. And since objections cannot be found among the evidence, then where can they be found?
With the Evidence Question Dismissed, the Supernatural Question Remains
This is not to say that I believe the outlandish claims of the evolutionists—I do not. But by accepting their claims for the sake of argument, the anti-supernatural skepticism hidden in the Old-Earth Creationist view is laid bare. The question begs to be answered: Now that the scientific evidence is accepted, what reason will you offer for not accepting the plain-as-day straightforward Biblical account of a miraculous creation approximately six thousand years ago? With the evidence question effectively dismissed by accepting it from the start, then this question of belief in the Scriptural testimony of the miraculous must be dealt with.
It will not do to object that God would be deceptive to create the world with an apparent age—with natural processes apparently in progress long before creation. If there were any weight to this objection, then God could not perform any miracles, since all miracles are inherently deceptive to those who do not believe. Was the water turned to wine, or did the host save the best wine for last? How many unbelievers would have guessed that Mary, when “great with child,” must still have been a virgin? Do you suppose that Lazarus walked out of the tomb looking like a “zombie,” so that all who met him in his latter days would immediately know by his appearance that he had once been dead for four days? Or, would you agree that he left death behind him and looked fully alive, just as if he had never died? But such a lively appearance would be deceptive, giving no indication to those who did not know that he had died that any miraculous raising from the dead had occurred. Supernatural miracles leave no trace of evidence—no “miracle particles” to be found. Every supernatural miracle is inherently deceptive to those who do not hold the truth about what happened. Thus, this objection fails.
How do we square the world’s scientific authority with the God of such supernatural actions? The unbelieving world stands on the ever-changing but tangible ground of “evidence,” and has only scorn and disgust for anyone who stands anywhere else. But the Christian stands solidly on faith, having the written word of God and the sure witness of the Spirit—and we will not budge! There can be no reconciliation between a faith-based perspective and an evidence-based perspective. Someone once said it well: “For those who believe, no evidence is needed; but for those who do not, no evidence would be enough.” It is the very fabric of the Christian faith to accept as incontrovertible the sole evidence of the written word of God and the witness of the Holy Spirit—even if no other supporting evidences are discovered and in spite of whatever supposed evidences to the contrary may be presented. Is this really the kind of faith you have? If not, then tell us why you’re willing to believe with certainty that Christ miraculously and physically rose from the dead after three days, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence strong enough to scientifically prove it, but yet, you falter when it comes to a miracle no greater but only larger in scale?
If the Lord is a God of supernatural actions, then believe Him; but if not, then in whom do you believe? For all of us who claim to believe in Christ, this issue should have been settled beyond all question at the empty tomb. If Christ did not physically rise from the dead, then you and I are still in our sins. But praise God! We know that He did physically rise from the dead, and that God is a God of supernatural actions. Those who would be saved by Jesus Christ, the only name by which a man may be saved, must believe that He physically rose from the dead (as well as believing that He was the eternal Son of God who became a man, lived a perfect life, and died to pay for our sins). We as believers are so familiar with all this as to lose our astonishment with it. A real man named Jesus walked around for three years healing people of all kinds of diseases and disabilities. He even literally raised some men from the dead—one of them was dead long enough to stink of decomposition. To top it off, He Himself literally and physically was resurrected to immortality and walked out of the tomb after being dead three days! Do you really believe this?
Scientists have observed millions upon millions of people and animals dying. Death is well known and understood. It is a scientific fact beyond dispute—a proven law of nature—that all living biological things die and then decompose. The claim that Jesus raised people from the dead and was even raised from the dead Himself is worthy of only scorn and perhaps pity from the scientific community. However, we grant them no credibility on this question because the Spirit of God has revealed to us, with utter certainty, that the Bible is the true and inspired word of God and that Christ was literally raised from the dead. And the Bible reveals that the unbelieving world hates God and hates the truth, seeking to hide from both in a fog of rationalistic demands for tangible evidence. So which are you? Are you a believer in the supernatural acts of God in spite of the world’s scorn, or does the world’s insistence on evidence have you in a fog?
The scientifically sophisticated Christian—one who is enlightened by an “open-minded“ acknowledgement of the authority and wisdom of science—can find an intelligent way out of this dilemma. He can find in his “hermeneutical toolbox” various ways to read the accounts of Christ’s resurrection in a less literal, less physical sense. After all, Christ did seem to walk right through walls, and we know scientifically that it is impossible for a real physical body to move through a wall in that way. As well, we are told in 1 Cor 15 that the kind of body we will have after the resurrection will be a “spiritual” body, so that whole resurrected Savior story can be creatively reinterpreted. Therefore, one could understand His resurrection to be spiritual and not really physical. But if you find the idea of reinterpreting Christ’s resurrection to remove the supernatural miraculous quality of it to be unthinkable, then why would you think it’s OK to use that same scientific hermeneutic to reinterpret the account of a miraculous, supernatural six-day creation? Why do you waver between a faith-based perspective that has no problems with any evidence, and an evidence-based perspective that insists that evidence must be weighed and Biblical accounts of immediate supernatural events cannot be taken at face-value?
Since all the scientific evidence and theories can now be accounted for from the start, without having any bearing on the question of the recent, supernatural, miraculous creation that is plainly the revealed chronology of Scripture, then evidence is no longer an excuse for skepticism. In the face of the revealed truth of the written word of the supernatural God, the most that science can determine about origins is the condition of the world as God recently created it. Does science insist on billion-year-old rocks and fossils? Then God created billion-year-old rocks and fossils, about 6000 years ago. Does Scripture demand that the principle of death did not enter into the world until Adam sinned? Then not one creature in God’s creation died until Adam sinned. It makes little difference whether or not you accept evolution. The real question is whether you are willing to accept revealed truth in spite of the evidence or prefer to reinterpret revelation to make it accord with the evidence.
* The spiritual nature of human beings could never evolve, but could only be supernaturally created. But neither does the spirit leave any trace of scientific evidence. Humanity in its current state is scientifically assumed to be in its most evolved state, and God needed only to step in and provide that spiritual part of man when he created everything supernaturally out of nothing, effectively bringing man into existence in his most evolved state in that point in the virtual chronology.
© 2014 Microsoft Terms Privacy & cookies Developers English (United States)
Well, Ken, I’m underwhelmed but will read more carefully later and respond again. I think you lay out a scenario by importing a boatload of assumptions that leave nothing to be discussed. Even though it is never stated in Scripture, the earth is 6k years old. Period. We go from there…
William,
Considering the available space, I thought it best not to set out the Scriptural basis for the 6000-year chronology. Many YEC’s give it as 6 to 10, but I don’t find that large of a margin to be either necessary or a problem. Once the genealogies begin in Gen. 5, the Bible paints a pretty detailed picture of how many years were involved from Adam to Noah & the flood, and from Noah to Christ. Criticism of that chronology presupposes that physical evidence for an old earth weighs against such a chronology—but with the weight of that evidence removed from the question, such criticism quickly loses its justification.
I have to agree. Some of this is quite interesting but there are a bunch of assumptions about OECers that I’m certain we all aren’t willing to accept and frankly answer difficulties that we don’t acknowledge. I too will read it again, but the heart of the article is this: The only possible way to interpret Gen. 1 and 2 is the YEC interpretation. Of course that isn’t true. The author is essentially saying you must acknowledge that we YECers are right, but in turn you can claim to be a little bit right.
Bill,
Of course, OEC’ers vary somewhat. Some accept evolution and some don’t. Some hold to the gap theory, and some don’t, etc. But what all of them have in common is that they have adopted an alternative to the plain, straightforward reading of Scripture on this matter. What I have sought to do in this article (and I think successfully so) is to remove all justification for resorting to these alternative interpretations, since all of them are based on evidence for an old earth.
It is interesting that you guys recognize right away that there are assumptions that exclude your view from the start. But yet, I’ve yet to encounter an Old-Earther who acknowledges that his own assumptions exclude from the start the possibility of a recent, supernatural, miraculous creation. What I mean is this: Such a miraculous creation would leave no trace of physical evidence; therefore, to admit physical evidence into the court of your mind in order to help you determine what the Genesis account really says is to rule out a priori anything except that which leaves evidence.
And what will you argue regarding Christ’s resurrection? How do any Old-Earthers reconcile an evidence-based perspective regarding origins and a faith-based perspective regarding Christ?
Ken,
The miraculous event of the resurrection is testified to by the empty tomb, and witnesses who saw and touched the resurrected Christ. Although it was a miraculous event that falls outside the understanding of science, it has plenty of evidence for its occurrence. Scripture itself indicates so in the constant reference to the testimony of witnesses.
Beat me to that one – William C.
On top of that Paul later affirmed again the demonstrable evidence for the resurrection in first Corinthians chapter 15.
So it seems that demonstrable evidence in no way defies the strength of miraculous biblical assertions.
Ken,
My response above and I think that of William C. applies to your statement;
“a supernatural, miraculous, divine act leaves no evidence”
A miracle leaves no physical evidence. It does often leave witnesses. However, witnesses are notorious for being mistaken or even led astray. As for this case, I’ve not talked to any of them—have you? Can you produce these witnesses? A book testifies to that Christ was raised; but another so-called “holy” book, the Koran, says that Christ was never even crucified. Books prove nothing scientifically, and neither do witnesses even if still living. All that such amounts to is probability and not scientific proof. Christ did rise from the dead, and we know this with absolute certainty—but only because the Holy Spirit witnesses to that truth and verifies the truth of Scripture with utter certainty to those who believe. An empty tomb proves nothing.
Ken,
I don’t understand your argument that a miracle may leave witnesses but not physical evidence. How could you have witnesses without physical evidence? There has to be something physical for them to witness.
I honestly can’t tell whether you’re being satirical now.
“a miracle leaves no physical evidence.”
Really?
Lazarus, was not demonstrably risen?
Tge beggar at the gate not demonstrably healed?
The lame man brought through the roof not demonstrably healed ?
The blind man not demonstrably healed?
The woman with the “issue of blood”?
I’m not sure I’m going where you appear to be, I think inadvertently, leading.
Witnesses but not physical evidence.
Certainly those who witness a miracle see something physical. Certainly the cloths they wrapped Jesus in is physical evidence. But in scientific ways these evidences are not evidences. We only have supposed written testimony to the miracles of the Bible.
I say “supposed” because the Bible is a book we believe by faith not because of any evidence. Yes there is ‘some’ evidence to support it, but such evidence could also be used to point to other theories.
The Bible speaks of a city. Archeologists dig into a ruin and discover said city. But this evidence only proves that the Bible isn’t completely made up, not that its truth claims are to be accepted whole sale.
Creation speaks to God the creator. But creation, by those who have rejected God, has become a place for them to find out how it came about by chance.
So we must separate the truth we know by faith, which we know is true, and what the world perceives as true. They believe the lie having exchanged the truth for a lie. Romans 1:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
So yes there is physical evidence for creation: the earth itself. But it is not conclusive to unbelievers who have been blinded by sin.
So yes there was evidence of the resurrection, the testimony of believers, but those who would not believe that testimony assumed some other explanation other than the miraculous.
And we see that Jesus did not appear but selectively, and only to those of the faith. Miracles are not meant to bring about faith. Jesus said, if you do not believe my words, then believe me for my miracles. And yet they did not believe and instead put Him to death.
Miracles are seen [at least usually] but there is no lasting scientific evidence to verify them. In the end, they must be taken as true by faith.
Thank you, ParsonsMike. You and I have some strong disagreements in some other areas, but some strong agreements in this.
When I say that a miracle leaves no trace of evidence, I’m pointing out that quality shared with the miracle of a recent creation out of nothing. Thus, I’m referring to the fact that God can and has, according to the Bible, created things and beings that are already mature the moment they were brought into existence. Because they were already mature, then any physical evidences examined regarding their age would require a scientist to extrapolate based on known natural processes that commonly result in such a level of maturity. If we could bring Adam to our day by time machine, we could put him in the MRI and we would find every medical reason to believe that he had been born quite some time prior to the day that God created him. The same goes for the fruit trees in the garden already bearing fruit. The same goes for the water turned to wine. The same principle will be found true in every miracle that God performs—but it must be looked for. Evidences that are not in this same category, such as witnesses, do not apply.
Tarheel,
You said:
Did not Abraham tell the rich man that if they do not believe Moses, then even if one rise from the dead they will not believe? Those who saw the risen Christ and believed had something more important to such faith than the mere experience of seeing Christ: they had the witness of the Holy Spirit, which they embraced. Such miracles may be accompanied by the personal experience and testimony of eyewitnesses; but they leave no trace evidence for scientists to examine to prove the miracle happened. A scientist who sees a man come out of a tomb wrapped in grave clothes is not going to proclaim, “A dead man is risen!,” but rather, “This man was mistakenly buried.” Science goes by natural laws, so miracles are ruled out from the start. Dead things do not recover—they decay—according to natural law.
William Carpenter, Tarheel, etc.,
Scientifically speaking, a man coming out of a tomb after three days weighs more toward proving that he never really died than it does toward proving he rose from the dead.
Ken,
“Scientifically speaking, a man coming out of a tomb after three days weighs more toward proving that he never really died than it does toward proving he rose from the dead.”
Do you not see the slippery slope you are on? I think I understand what you are trying to do, but I just cannot bring myself to get on that slope with you.
ONe of the reasons for the three days I thought was to demonstrate that there was actually a death.
Also, relating to Jesus…there were several instances of “evidence” that he was truly dead when he was buried…the blood and water gushing out of his side after the spearing for one. I am not sure there is a “scientific way” that one can live through that – especially after crucifixion and the prior beating he endured.
Dispelling witness testimony is folly I think in this case…because, for other reasons – it would have required a conspiracy of monumental proportions including martyrdom of any individuals to advance the conspiracy – – – not to mention (this could apply to Lazarus and Dorcas in Acts 9, too) there is no such thing, scientifically speaking as “identical group hallucinations”.
Hit submit too soon…(and then this showed up in the wrong place…trying again..LOL)
Since there no the hallucination factor is out…and all three of the deaths we are speaking of were evidenced by witnesses and the passing of long periods of time…then these miracles are works of God (as only he can raise the dead to life) and are also evidenced.
I just am not sure that I buy that demonstrable evidence defies the reality of biblically accounted miracles.
Tarheel, You said: Do you not see the slippery slope you are on? I think I understand what you are trying to do, but I just cannot bring myself to get on that slope with you. I’m just trying to get you to see that while the empty tomb points to the resurrection of Jesus, only the Spirit of God in conjunction with the Bible can prove it as true. You stated: ONe of the reasons for the three days I thought was to demonstrate that there was actually a death. Ever hear of the “Swoon Theory?” It’s very old and nothing new. There’s room for such skepticism because only the Holy Spirit’s confirms the truth with utter certainty. Human evidences never achieve utter certainty. Human reasoning from such evidences alone never arrives at utter certainty. You stated: Also, relating to Jesus…there were several instances of “evidence” that he was truly dead when he was buried…the blood and water gushing out of his side after the spearing for one. I am not sure there is a “scientific way” that one can live through that – especially after crucifixion and the prior beating he endured. Apart from the witness of the Holy Spirit to the truthfulness of Scripture, we have no way of being certain that the Biblical account is accurate and true and not embellished. You said: Dispelling witness testimony is folly I think in this case…because, for other reasons – it would have required a conspiracy of monumental proportions including martyrdom of any individuals to advance the conspiracy – – – not to mention (this could apply to Lazarus and Dorcas in Acts 9, too) there is no such thing, scientifically speaking as “identical group hallucinations”. Which group is that? We have only the Book to tell us that there was a group. Without the Holy Spirit’s witness, we have no way of knowing if there was a group—or that they saw what the Book claims that they saw. Bear in mind that I agree with you that the Bible is absolutely true. It’s how we know that it’s true that we seem to disagree on. You think I’m on a slippery slope. But what of the slippery slope of putting undue confidence in human evidence and human reasoning, and neglecting the vital role to faith that belongs to the Holy Spirit? All of this parallels to the miracle… Read more »
I’ll still read more carefully and respond later but re this comment, the YE position seeks to drive from orthodoxy any who disagree; hence, the immediate flight to the Ressurection.
The other William,
I had come to the same conclusion and was ready to make that observation.
Ken, the scripture is clear that the resurrection was scientifically obervable:
Matthew 28:6 He is not here; he has risen just as he said. Come and SEE the place where he lay.
Matt. 28:9 Suddenly Jesus met them. Greetings he said. They came to him, CLASPED his feet and worshipped him.
John 20:4-8 John and Peter go to the tomb and SEE the strips of linen and napkin lying there.
John 20:27 The he said to Thomas, “PUT your finger here; SEE my hands. Reach out your hand and PUT it into my side.
Acts 2:32 God has raised this Jesus to life and we are all WITNESS of the fact.
Acts 3:15, 10:39 & 41, 13:30-31 say the same thing.
1 Cor. 15:5-8 Verify that he was seen by Peter, then the 12, then over 500 many who were still alive at the time, then James, and finally to Paul himself.
Scripture records that the resurrection was a scientifically observable fact, although not scientifically explainable. The Holy Spirit confirms this in our hearts, but we are not asked to believe like the Mormons do, or like the Koran tells us based on the evidence of a mere book, but because the authors of the books in the NT had seen it for themselves.
William Thornton,
You said, “…the YE position seeks to drive from orthodoxy any who disagree; hence, the immediate flight to the Ressurection.”
The Recent Creation position is that the Old-Earth position is inconsistent and inferior, but not unorthodox. There are many such positions, such as losable salvation, that are problematic and inconsistent, but still within orthodoxy. The “immediate flight” to the resurrection is only to show your inconsistency, since the resurrection is the ultimate miracle of which all Christians agree.
However, I do believe that the Old-Earth position is the first step on the road to organizational abandonment of orthodoxy. Taking that first step does not necessitate any further steps; but the list of institutions and denominations in the rubbish pile at the end of that road is daunting.
William Carpenter,
You stated:
I’m sure it was unintentional, but your reasoning here is similar to a shell game. You say, “…we are not asked to believe… based on the evidence of a mere book…” but then you hide that same idea under the shell of eyewitness accounts, by saying, “…but because the authors of the books in the NT had seen it for themselves.” And how do you know that “the authors of the books in the NT had seen it for themselves,” except by “the evidence of a mere book”? Whether a man tells you that he saw something or writes in a book what he saw, they both are of equal value. But they only establish probabilities, and do not prove anything.
Ken,
NT 101: Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew (we can get into the dispute, but evidence indicates Matthew wrote it)? Did Matthew see Jesus alive?
Who wrote the Gospel of Mark (again disputes but evidence indicates Mark most likely on the testimony of Peter)? Did Peter see Jesus alive? Did Mark have available people who saw and possible saw for himself Jesus alive?
Who wrote the book of Luke? Did Luke investigate the evidence available to him (Luke 1:3)?
Who wrote the Gospel of John? Did John see Jesus alive?
Who wrote 1 Corinthians? Did Paul see Jesus alive?
All of this is scientific evidence, and these guys were not primitive in their assumptions. They knew what dead people looked like, knew Jesus was dead, saw him alive and assumed (yes with the help of the Holy Spirit) not that he had resuscitated but had been raised from the dead.
Who wrote the Koran? Did Mohammad see Jesus not die.
Who wrote the Book of Mormon that gives a radically different testimony to events in America prior to European colonization? Did Joseph Smith see these events or do we take it on his word that he found some mysterious golden plates recording a totally history of the native Americans than the evidence indicates and accept it in spite of the evidence.
I repeat it, the church has claimed it, the Bible speaks to it, the resurrection of Christ happened and we are left with witnesses who testify to its validity. Many will reject that evidence, and for many that evidence in itself is not enough, nay for all that evidence is not enough, only with the conviction of the Holy Spirit can we accept it. However, that still does accord with your claim that we believe in spite of the scientific evidence.
William Carpenter,
What you’re talking about is not scientific evidence, per se, but historical evidence. I will even grant that the historical evidence for much of Scripture establishes the Bible as extremely reliable. Given such evidence, it is extremely improbable that what the Bible claims is untrue or the witnesses false. But that is not the same thing as scientific proof. Maybe it is in the “science of history,” but not in the physical sciences. The fact remains that the whole thing could have been made up—the possibility remains no matter how small it is.
But let’s keep our eyes on the ball here. When I stated that a miraculous act leaves no trace of evidence, comparing creation to New Testament miracles, I had in mind the kind of evidence that scientists might give weight to in determining origins. As I repeated, there are no miracle particles that scientists can find under a microscope, measure, and determine if and when a miraculous creative event occurred. THe same applies to any other miracle. When put under that same microscope, there will be no miracle particles in the loaves and fish that fed the 5000, the wine from water, or the body of Lazarus.
God Himself was an eyewitness to creation and His testimony is recorded in Genesis. But no scientist cares about such historical evidence. Wasn’t Adam and Eve eyewitnesses who saw and spoke with God, who experienced all that is written about them?
Hit submit too soon…
Since there no the hallucination factor is out…and all three of the deaths we are speaking of were evidenced by witnesses and the passing of long periods of time…then these miracles are works of God (as only he can raise the dead to life) and are also evidenced.
I just am not sure that I buy that demonstrable evidence defies the reality of biblically accounted miracles.
Ken,
Thanks for taking the time to post this. You’ve obviously put much time and thought in this.
You’re welcome, Tarheel. Thanks for reading it.
I dont know just what OEC brothers believe and their rational for those beliefs.
Could one of you explain these?
Thanks.
Ken, I rarely enter into these types of discussion, mostly because I never was very good in science, and when the scientific part of it gets too technical my head starts swimming. Your article draws me in, though.
I will lay my cards on the table and say that of the different views I have read, though I am still somewhat open-ended regarding this, the arguments of people like Hugh Ross make the most sense to me.
Given all that, okay, I’ll bite. Let’s suppose God created everything by fiat 6,000 years ago, with the appearance of age. He is perfectly capable. But why? It seems to me, from the biblical revelation that comes to mind, that God has designed creation with the intent of helping those who are seeking Him to find Him there, not with the intent of putting obstacles to belief in their way. (Psalm 8, Romans 1, etc.)
Also, I cannot avoid the idea that the information that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day, as signs to mark the days, seasons, and years, is, from the writer’s perspective, significant. In other words, it seems evident to me that, in the mind of the writer, there was something different about the “days” before the fourth day, and those afterward. It even appears possible (if not likely) to me the writer is giving his readers a clue here to not read certain elements of his narrative too literally. He was certainly intelligent enough to realize the problems the fourth-day info poses for a 6 24-hour day interpretation, if that were what he was meaning to communicate.
So, there you have it: my reasons for questioning (though not totally rejecting) a literal 6 24-hour day creation, based on the biblical text alone, and without going into all the scientific evidence.
I am interested to hear your response, as I am still (after all these years) gathering information and forming my opinion on all this.
Brother David, It’s good to have you join in. Just as it is not necessary to hold to a young earth to be saved, it is not necessary for God to provide the revealed chronology in order for creation to bear sufficient witness of His existence. Those mentioned in Rom. 1 were without excuse not because they had right ideas about the age of the earth, but because they knew there is a Creator. The inherent deceptiveness of any miracle to those who do not hold the truth of the matter is unavoidable, but it certainly does not present any obstacles to belief. And what of the other miracles? Were they obstacles to belief as well? The fact that God created everything is revealed through the testimony of nature. The when and how is revealed only in Scripture. I’ve already answered the “why?” It is the nature of a miracle to leave no evidence, so that those who assume no miracle happened will assume natural processes are responsible. Determining the age of the earth—or of Adam, for that matter—is simply extrapolating back to the point of supposed origin based on how much time the responsible natural processes would have taken to arrive at the current point. It is to assume from the start that natural processes are completely responsible. But in the face of a such a Creator, where is the justification for such an assumption. And without justification, then where is the supposed deception? Nevertheless, it is written that those who are not lovers of the truth will be sent strong delusion that they should believe a lie. Yes, God created the sun, moon and stars to mark the days, seasons and years, on Day 4. But God Himself had already been marking off the days for the three days prior—the same God who decided how long a day would be, and who created language, words, meaning, and communications—and who calls Himself and His word “True.” You say that your reasons for questioning are based on the text alone, but I find nothing in the text to indicate that a day without the sun would not be the same length as a day with the sun. It is WE and not God who need the sun to tell the length of day. And, in fact, we no longer need it: men who live in the arctic circle may have… Read more »
It would appear to me to be expected that the other biblical mentions of “yom” would refer to literal 24-hour periods, and the first 3 days of creation the exception, since they all refer to post-4th-day events (i.e. events that happened after the position of the sun, moon, and stars marked off one day from another). Also, the text does not identify for us how we are to understand the “mornings” and “evenings” of the first three days. It does, however, appear to indicate (at least, as I read it) that something changed with regard to this on the fourth day. Also, I believe that Revelation gives us a hermeneutical clue from the broad context of the compendium of divine revelation when it tells us there is no need of the sun for light in the New Jerusalem.
Where does all this leave me? A convinced believer in the fact of supernatural creation itself, and a tentative agnostic with regard to the timing of all the events of creation.
David,
Just curious as to your position on Exodus 20:11, which says that since God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th, therefore the nation of Israel should work 6 days and rest on the Sabbath. Now, if we believe Moses is the author of both Genesis and Exodus, then we have a connundrum if we want to say that Moses has now taken something from Genesis that was figurative (6 day creation) and is now using it as a concrete example. He then reiterates it again in chapter 31.
This seems to me the best evidence of a literal six day creation.
Nate, I think that is a good point and one worthy of consideration. It is points like that that keep me on the line, so to speak, between one position or another in this particular discussion.
That being said, I am not 100% convinced that sound rules of hermeneutics based on an approach that accepts the divine inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture demand your conclusion. It is plausible, from my reading, that Moses in both Genesis and Exodus is either referring to a trope or motif in God’s divine revelation to him, or possibly a literal six days made up of uneven time periods, as we count time, and then applying this figure (following divine guidance and inspiration) to a command for Israel to keep a literal six-day work week and seventh-day Sabbath.
Please understand I am not saying this must be the case, but rather, at my present stage of development in considering this question, is an option I don’t feel I can totally rule out.
I certainly understand what you are saying and that could be that Moses is implying a comparison figuratively. To me however, the probability of that seems highly unlikely given the fact that Genesis and Exodus were written (almost suredly) very closely together as Moses is using Creation here as the template for the work week (and Sabbath) of Israel (and a mechanism for teaching).
I was trying to think of other instances in Scripture where Moses, or others, would have employed a similar comparison. I really couldn’t think of one. Perhaps you know of one? Typically I’ve heard some use Peter’s “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years,” but that example doesn’t draw from anywhere else in Scripture to use a particular event (for the day) to compare it to a thousand years.
Nate,
I’m not sure if this would meet the criteria of what you’re talking about, but something that comes to mind is Psalm 19. The Psalmist says, if we interpret him literally, that the heavens, the firmament, the days, and the nights, speak; and that the sun is set in a tabernacle and rejoices.
Most everyone I know, regardless of how literal their hermeneutic, understands these are figures of speech. Yet the Psalmist uses these to illustrate and provide the backdrop for a more literal point he wants to make in vv. 7-14 about the authority and efficacy of Scripture.
I imagine there are a good many other examples similar to this one, but perhaps not so many (if any) that would exactly meet up to the criteria you are suggesting. I will have to mull over this some more. Or perhaps someone else can think of a better example.
You’re exactly right on Ps 19, it is figurative. I was just trying to find (and really haven’t been able to) an example that would then compare that (the figurative language of Ps 19, or elsewhere) against something that isn’t. This is what Moses is doing, if we say that the days mentioned in Gen 1 are not literal days. I can’t find another example in Scripture, which leads me to further cement myself into a literal 6 day creation and hold that Moses is comparing literal days in Genesis against a literal week in Exodus.
Here is one other option that comes to mind–Jude 1:9: “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!'”
Does the inerrancy of Scripture demand that this really happened as Jude describes it here? It is possible that God supernaturally revealed this to him, and he is recording for us the content of this divine revelation. But it seems likely to me that if Jude were the recipient of a special revelation like this, he would have added in a note to inform the readers how he arrived at this information. The more likely explanation, in my mind, is that Jude is relating information from stories known by his readers, reflected in apocryphal and other literature, and using this story as an illustration of the point he is making. He certainly didn’t get this story from the Old Testament.
Thus, if it turns out that the story of Michael and the devil disputing over the body of Moses didn’t literally happen, my trust in the accuracy and authority of the Bible is not undermined, and my hermeneutical grid does not, as a result, come tumbling down. And, for the other part, it may well be that it did happen just like Jude narrates it, and that God miraculously oversaw Jude’s appropriation of religious legend and folklore so that the part he referenced was something that really did happen. I don’t know for sure.
If, for example, I say, “Just as the boy that cried wolf was finally ignored by the townspeople, we too should be careful about fear-mongering and making claims we cannot back up,” I am not lying or deceiving in any way. I am using a commonly known story that is true, but not literally true, to make a point that should be carried out quite literally.
Having said this, I am aware of the dangers of this line of thinking, and by no means am insinuating that the historical portions of Scripture were never meant to be taken as literal history and are just myths and symbols. I do believe, and strongly, in the literal historicity of Scripture. The devil is in the details, sometimes, though.
David Rogers, You stated: It would appear to me to be expected that the other biblical mentions of “yom” would refer to literal 24-hour periods, and the first 3 days of creation the exception, since they all refer to post-4th-day events (i.e. events that happened after the position of the sun, moon, and stars marked off one day from another). Also, the text does not identify for us how we are to understand the “mornings” and “evenings” of the first three days. It does, however, appear to indicate (at least, as I read it) that something changed with regard to this on the fourth day. Isn’t that special pleading? The commonly accepted exegetical practice is to look how the same words are used in other places in the same passage, book, and testament, etc.—and 350 instances that all confirm a normal day would require a heavy burden of proof to overturn. According to the text, the only thing that changed on Day 4 was the number of celestial lights in the sky. NO indication whatsoever that the meaning of day, evening or morning had changed. It is from YOUR reasoning and not from the TEXT that these changes come; therefore, it is on you to establish that such changes are part of the intended meaning. Words convey meaning, and are chosen by God because of the meaning that each one conveys. Both the writer and the readers are as familiar with these words and their meaning as they are familiar with waking up in the morning and going to bed in the evening. The text does indeed “identify for us how we are to understand the ‘mornings’ and ‘evenings’ of the first three days:” by using the words themselves, “evening and morning were the [first, second, etc.] day,” it identifies that we are to understand these as normal, DAILY mornings and evenings—the same kind that stretch into every other day of the Creation Week (and even up to today). IF they were not of the daily kind of mornings and evenings, then language no longer has meaning and anybody can make any text say anything without being held to any proper standard of exegesis. You said: Also, I believe that Revelation gives us a hermeneutical clue from the broad context of the compendium of divine revelation when it tells us there is no need of the sun for light in… Read more »
Ken, Special pleading? I don’t think so, and here’s the reason why. You mention common exegetical practice, as if there is some predetermined set of rules that come along with the Bible and is our guide for understanding what it says. While I strongly believe in the value of grammatico-historical hermeneutics as a tool to help us better understand God’s Word to us, I don’t believe the rule list of grammatico-historical hermeneutics (wherever such a definitive list of rules may exist) is inspired in the same way as is Scripture itself. The “rules” of hermeneutics that we have (such as words generally conveying the same meaning, especially if in other places the meaning appears to be the same in the preponderance of the cases) are merely reflections of the logical reasoning of thoughtful people who have taken the time and effort to meditate on and identify them. But the hermeneutical rule per se does not trump the reasoning process that led to the identification of the rule. In the particular case we are discussing, it seems to me there are factors involved which give good reason for thinking people to hold the rule of “a word generally means what it means in other places” in check. In other words, yes, we are talking about an exceptional use of the term “yom.” But exceptional circumstances sometimes call for exceptional uses. And if there ever were an exceptional circumstance behind the use of a word like “yom,” it would be, according to the reasoning ability that God the Creator pre-wired into my brain, the circumstances of Gen. 1, especially with regard to the “days” before the fourth one. You say the only thing that changed was the presence of the sun, moon, and stars. But I say that the text itself also states that the manner in which days, seasons, and years were marked (or measured) also changed. You also posit that the source of light may well have been God Himself. On this point, we are in agreement. But the text does not specifically tell us so, so we must not make too much of this point, or build our case entirely on it. You also mention that the first three days all consisted of both morning and evening, light and darkness. In other words, the light of God (if that is the source of the light indicated) did not extend… Read more »
David Rogers, You stated: Special pleading? I don’t think so, and here’s the reason why. You mention common exegetical practice, as if there is some predetermined set of rules that come along with the Bible and is our guide for understanding what it says. While I strongly believe in the value of grammatico-historical hermeneutics as a tool to help us better understand God’s Word to us, I don’t believe the rule list of grammatico-historical hermeneutics (wherever such a definitive list of rules may exist) is inspired in the same way as is Scripture itself. The “rules” of hermeneutics that we have (such as words generally conveying the same meaning, especially if in other places the meaning appears to be the same in the preponderance of the cases) are merely reflections of the logical reasoning of thoughtful people who have taken the time and effort to meditate on and identify them. But the hermeneutical rule per se does not trump the reasoning process that led to the identification of the rule. There is a common understanding—among conservative students of Scripture (“Bereans,” if you will) of what accords with proper exegesis and what does not. For example, failing to address the immediate context and asserting the standard lexicon meaning does not accord with it; failing to address the wider context of the paragraph, and of the book, and of the other books by the same author, and of the whole testament and whole of Scripture, does not accord with it; and failing to give due weight to how a word or phrase in question is used elsewhere in these same contexts does not accord with it. For another example, see Rev. 13:8, “All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Do you know how many times I have been told that the cross satisfied justice “outside of time” because Christ was the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?” It is an idea cherished by many. But it exegetically substandard. If regard is given to the wider context, we find this in 17:8, “…And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and… Read more »
What is curious for me is that God says evening and morning were the first day. But when I think of a day, I think of it as from morning to evening… as in… if saying something to my daughter…
From morning to evening, all day long, i have been waiting for you to call me young lady…
The Jewish day was from what sunrise to sunrise?
Or was it sunrise to sunset?
This is the knife’s edge that will cut through the confusion: a supernatural, miraculous, divine act leaves no evidence; therefore, to give weight to evidence is to close one’s eyes to the possibility of the miraculous event, while to believe the miracle is to close one’s eyes to the evidence—two mutually exclusive presuppositions built on faith (one one faith in the evidence, and the other on faith in the revelation).
Isn’t “accepting all the scientific claims at face value, and still insisting on a recent supernatural creation out of nothing” just a new wrinkle on the old argument that God put dinosaur fossils in rocks just to fool the gullible?
Why not instead concede that both “sides” have certain presuppositions, not necessarily “black letter”
from the Bible, and that however we-and-everything-else got here is how God intended it for us to get here?
John
No, John, it’s more than that. The question that got me thinking along these lines was this: “If evolution were eventually proven beyond all doubt to be true, how would it affect your faith as a Young-Earth Creationist.” This is a serious matter, as there have been some children raised in a good YEC-teaching church, who have gone off to secular college, only to be so overwhelmed by the evolutionary evidence that they supposedly have “left the faith.” There are Old-Earthers like BioLogos who blame this on the refusal of the Church to embrace science and incorporate it into their faith. But as I’ve set out in the article above, even if evolution were proven true, it would be no threat to a Biblical view of a recent creation by divine fiat. There’s no direct deception involved, but only the indirect deception that is unavoidable whenever God acts in ways that are above natural laws. Those who would never consider natural laws being suspended would naturally come to the wrong conclusion about what happened.
I appreciate your response. However I still do not see much difference–in details perhaps and sophistication of wording, but it seems to me to amount to the much the same thing. The universe is not old, it just appears to be. And it if only appears to be, and/or if it were created “old,” then there must be some degree of deception involved. Kids leaving the faith because secondary issues (as I see them) have been elevated to keystones of trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are precisely my concern. On the other hand, to say, “however we got here and however long it took is how God intended us to get here,” avoids that problem altogether. Christians can still have honest differences of opinion (and debates) as the to “how” and “how long,” but it ceases to be a watershed between faith and its loss.
John
I like William Thornton am underwhelmed. I determined this article would be problematic when I read: “I propose that—for the sake of argument-–we eliminate the evidence question all together.” Finally, I concluded it was so when I read the last statement: “The real question is whether you are willing to accept revealed truth in spite of the evidence or prefer to reinterpret revelation to make it accord with the evidence.”
Scripture does not demand that we accept revealed truth “in spite of the evidence.” We hold that all truth is God’s truth, therefore the evidence is also God’s truth. The problem with Ken’s argument in this article is that he totally disassociates the miraculous from the observable striving to break faith away from science. In fact the miraculous is very observable. People believed in Christ because they saw him give sight to the blind. The evidence showed that a person was blind previously and now has sight. They saw him feed five thousand with five loaves and two fish, the scientific evidence shows that we could count the bread and fish beforehand, observe that 5000 people had been filled, and then count 12 baskets full afterwards. The scientific evidence shows that Lazarus was dead, in fact “he stinketh” and yet now he is alive.
A miracle is miracle not because there is no evidence of its occurrence, but because there is no natural explanation for its occurrence. Scripture seems to indicate opposite of Ken’s premise, that we are to note the evidence and observe that “this could be none other than the hand of God.” The same is true for creation. Whether OEC or YEC Genesis 1-2 would have us observe the world we live in and determine that none other than God could have done such.
So you can produce scientific evidence that Lazarus was raised from the dead? Or that Jesus fed 5000 with a little for?
Thus when evaluating claims of truth from history, as we do when deciding that Jesus indeed raised Lazarus and fed those many with the little or created the earth in 6 days, we do not have scientific evidence to prove the witness we have in the Word of God.
In some ‘Christian’ services people get cured of incurable diseases, and we hear the testimony of that occurrence. Do you believe very such claim?
In John 9, the man born blind was given sight by Jesus, but did all believe? Faith does not come simply by miracles. Faith in God, the faith that saves, comes by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Word [the Gospel].
So in either case, just hearing the testimony doesn’t necessary validate it as truth. Such testimonies only validate that someone else believes it as true. For some, that is good enough. For others it is not. But either way, such testimony is not really considered scientific evidence.
1) “So you can produce scientific evidence that Lazarus was raised from the dead? Or that Jesus fed 5000 with a little for?”
Yes, I have the eyewitness testimony as recorded in the Gospel of John and in all four Gospels. I still have to evaluate the credibility of that evidence, just any scientist has to evaluate the credibility of their evidence. But the fact remains that these events left evidence of their occurrence. I have the same evidence they occurred as I do that Julius Caesar ruled over Rome, the testimony of witnesses. In both cases I have to evaluate the credibility, but the evidence is still there.
2) “Faith does not come simply by miracles. Faith in God, the faith that saves, comes by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Word [the Gospel].”
No one in this forum has made such a claim. Instead, I am denying Ken’s claim “The real question is whether you are willing to accept revealed truth in spite of the evidence or prefer to reinterpret revelation to make it accord with the evidence.” and his proposition “I propose that—for the sake of argument-–we eliminate the evidence question all together.” Many will see and not believe. Just like many do not believe man ever visited the moon (in spite of the evidence to the contrary). Many saw the risen Christ and some still did doubted (Matt. 28:17). The Holy Spirit still must convict us of the truth concerning God, but that does not mean that there is no evidence of Him or His work in the world including the miraculous.
Ken,
Thanks for writing this. Your argument is well-written and thought-provoking. I take the creation account in Genesis literally, and as such it does indicate that God created Adam and Eve as fully developed adults surrounded by mature trees, etc. (bearing appearance of age).
It makes me wonder a few things, though (just thinking as I go along). It seems to me that your argument cannot be proven or disproven. If any material evidence apparently contrary to Scripture can be attributed to God’s having supernaturally caused it to appear that way, there could never be any evidentiary argument against God’s existence. Then again, there could never by any evidentiary argument FOR God’s existence either, because God could have supernaturally manufactured that evidence as well. I take it that’s at least part of your point, that God created things so we would have to accept him on faith. But without any material evidence that is reliable, what reason is there to ground our faith on the Bible’s creation account rather than any number of hypotheticals?
For example, how do we know God didn’t create us mere seconds ago, giving us false memories that make us think we’ve been living here for decades? I think Bertrand Russell proposed this kind of question. Could anyone prove God didn’t do that? There’s no empirical reason to think that he did, but if all empirical evidence has been improvised at God’s whim we can’t rely on empirical science anyway. I just wonder where we draw the line.
Jeff,
The Christian draws the line at the witness of the Holy Spirit that testifies of the existence of God, the reality of Christ’s resurrection and the truthfulness of Scripture. God’s revelation through the Holy Spirit and the Bible is self-verifying—the certainty is communicated with the knowledge.
As for empirical proof, that will be provided on Judgment Day. There will be no skeptics there, as all will know the truth.
A problem with your argument is that it rejects premises that the Bible itself relies on. The Bible clearly points to physical evidence of God’s activity in the world as a basis for faith. For example, Jesus himself implored people to believe on the basis of evidence provided by his miracles.
Jeff,
But instead of believing, they crucified Him.
Based on this testimony:
~~That Jesus implored them to believe because of His works and they subsequently crucified Him~~
Is not their testimony that His miracles did point to Jesus being of God?
Based on just that observation, we might conclude that they did not accept His miracle workings as a testimony of His divinity.
And if they did not, why should my unsaved neighbor, so far removed from the wonderful occurrences of that time, why should he believe that God, if there is one, can do miraculous things?
Especially when the science of his day tells him that God did not make or create man but that man evolved from monkeys who evolved from a primordial goo?
Ken – I believe you are correct in this sense – the very most, very most that scientific study can produce, is how old the earth “appears”, not necessarily how old it is.
http://changeworthmaking.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/young-earth-and-the-unnecessary-debate/#comments
sorry, – meant to post this link instead of comments link
http://changeworthmaking.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/young-earth-and-the-unnecessary-debate/
Jeff,
Excellent article—thanks for posting the link! It sounds very familiar 🙂
Ken, it was an interesting read. I’m not much fun when these discussions break out, at least among believers, as I take probably the most simplistic approach there is. The bible doesn’t say exactly when God created or give an age of the earth. I simply do not know, I just believe by faith He did as He said. The bible says “without faith it is impossible to please God,” and creation to me is one of those things that must be accepted by faith. God doesn’t give us the recipes for creation, thank goodness. He doesn’t say take 2 parts this and 3 parts that when making man, if He did we’d be making them today. Creation is of the mind of God. Sometimes, we must admit as He often tells us, we don’t know the mind of God. Our thoughts are not His thoughts(Is 55:8-9) and He still does have secret things only He knows(Deut 29:29). I always remember God’s words to Job; “were you there?” No, I was not, and it’s not my responsibility to prove God or creation. It’s always interesting to read of such things though so I thank you for the article.
Not mentioned here is a factor that I think all too often remains unmentioned in these discussions: Aesthetics.
Perhaps God created a world with a Grand Canyon and a Milky Way not to obfuscate the age of the Earth or to mislead scientific investigators but because He thinks they’re beautiful. Would God be prevented from, in addition to doing a bazillion things to indulge scientists among His creatures, doing a few things to inspire His artists?
I do not dispute that the stars mark the days and seasons, but one must admit that God makes astoundingly beautiful clocks!
Bart:
Several months ago, you posted a similar comment on this same topic that I really enjoyed—enjoyed so much so that I later quoted you in a discussion on this issue, so I just happened to have the quote handy in my notes:
“Sometimes scientists and engineers miss God’s hand in things because, I think, they presume that God must be a scientist or an engineer: Why on earth would it be functional or efficient for God to have created an already eroded somewhat, already tectonically shifted somewhat, already having the light of stars from trillions of miles away kind of universe.
It makes more sense if you conceive of God as not only scientist and engineer but also as poet and artist. A “new” earth would be ugly. A nighttime sky showing only the light from a few of the closest stars would be ugly. What we have is beautiful and grand (as well as amazingly functional and efficient).”
Your memory is better than mine, Zack. I had forgotten about the earlier comment!
Amen, Brother Bart! God didn’t have to make everything so beautiful—did He? He could have made all the fall leaves gray—and everything else for that matter. There need be no variety of species, no flowers, and he could have made it all ugly.
Indeed!
And making it beautiful required the appearance of age.
Ken:
I think you are conflating the idea of an “old earth” with the idea of an “old universe”.
Lets say you hold that “yom” could be a “period of time” not necessarily what today we would call a “24 hour day”. In that case, the universe could have been created — de novo — by God at some time past, say 13 billion years ago. The earth could have emerged — under God’s explicit direction, some time later. Everything was “without form and void” initially but God’s creative acts were not done all at one time. They took a number of “days”.
As a working hypothesis what about the idea that the Geologic column points to stuff, like the Grand Canyon, being only thousands or tens of thousands of years old, while the Genesis 1:1 creation event happened say 13 billion years ago during what scientists call the “big bang”.
There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts this particular interpretation.
However, there are of course a number of other “acceptable interpretations”. One of the other “acceptable interpretations” is the idea of God creating things with the appearance of age. I guess that interpretation is OK, but I personally don’t adhere to it because it is a contrived concept which has no warrant either Biblically or scientifically.
Holding that “yom” means a 24 hour day involves circular reasoning. A 24 day supposes that the earth is a solid body and that the sun exists. According to the Genesis account the earth AND sun — both of which must exist for our common concept of “day” to have any meaning — didn’t show up until “day” four.
So if we break the link between a “24 hour” day and some other reading of the Hebrew term “yom” then there is no dissonance between the old earth view and the Biblical view. There is no reason to come up with contrived stuff like the speed of light not being constant over time etc.
I say when various theories are on the table then choose the one that is simplest and most elegant: namely God’s creative acts extended over some period of time.
He started out with nothing and incrementally used a building block approach. For example, he made the first man out of dirt.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City
Thanks, Roger. You say here with a lot more scientific precision what I was trying to say in my last comment.
In my previous note I should have said, “. . . there is no dissonance between an OLD UNIVERSE view and the Biblical view. . . “. I fell into my own trap of equating an “old universe” view with an “old earth” view.
That’s what I get for poor proofreading.
Also change “. . . a 24 day supposes . . ” with a “. . . a 24 HOUR day supposes. . . ”
Roger
Just wondering if you’ve given consideration to John Walton’s approach. His scholarly work is “Genesis as Ancient Cosmology” and the popular version is “The Lost World of Genesis One.”
The (NAS) means (Not Adrian’s Son) to distinguish me from the better known and more prolific David Rogers who has commented above.
I haven’t, and am not familiar with him.
Ken,
I think I see what you are proposing for our discussion. Based on the Scripture alone, why should one believe the historical accuracy of the Resurrection and disbelieve in the six day creation account?
Good luck trying to keep the discussion on that track, brother!
Regarding “evidence” in the scientific sense, I think you are saying that all we have is the “testimony” of those who saw the “evidence” of the miracles. We were not the actual witnesses of the miracles we believe. Therefore the “evidence” of the Biblical miracles is not “evidence” to us because we did not “witness” the miracles and the “evidence” the miracles left behind.
If this is accurate, according to you puzzle, then there is no good reason to believe the “testimony” of the “miracles” about the resurrection and to disbelieve the “testimony” about the “miracles” of creation.
Am I on track with the purpose of your post, Ken?
Yes, Jerry. On track! And thanks for your input.
Ken, I’ve made a similar argument in the past and I appreciate your take. Either God created everything or he didn’t. If he created everything, then it would necessarily be a supernatural creation which would defy naturalistic presuppositions in testing. Put another way, it’s like testing the wine Jesus turned from water to see how long it had been fermenting. You can’t determine the age that way because it wasn’t fermented over time: it was made already fermented.
Thank you, Jim. Now if we could just get some of the OEC’s to apprehend that.
Ken, I always love reading through your posts. I too, like some have already stated, am not sure this is different from previous appearance based models, but the twist is kind of interesting. If we are to believe the scriptures as divine, then the conclusions given to us in Genesis about creation are consistent with those in Revelation. If we are to believe that Jesus had John witness the New Heavens and New Earth as an event coming down from God, then there seems to be little left to imagine with respect to understanding the real action of the Creator to make things not just appear, but are mature in Genesis. It appears that since one event has a time continuum, obviously an increased focus in our contemporary culture, Genesis; the New Heavens and New Earth appear to have no need of such explanation. I’ve observed as well, during the last 30 years, that scientist are no closer to recognizing the age of the earth or universe than they ever have been. In fact, scientists at the University of Arizona published that the accuracy was off by trillions of years…and they are still groping for a real number. Math tends to be more of language than a science really, conveniently calculated as spear against the supernatural.
Maybe that is what your aiming at here?
I guess the bottom line for me at this point on the OE vs. YE theorizing… is that it becomes a mute point when the aim of the evangelist is to define the Gospel that is on display at creation. When I teach, I’ve had no problem with a literal, mature, creation story; which is consistent with what Jesus revealed to John in the Revelation.
Chris,
You said:
I don’t think it’s a moot point, Chris. Evangelism becomes more and more difficult as the world’s scorn for the Church increases, justified by a Bible that is no longer seen as plausibly or possibly inspired, true and reliable. The ideas of God and creation become more anachronistic as secular scientists become more bold in their rejection of the “fairy tales” that religious people believe in.
Ken,…yes, moot is probably the wrong word to use. My point is that the tension of science and truth has its cycles. And I agree that we are living in an exciting time, where scientist are really excited about their math, and the ability of machines to see deeper into time and space. Yet, it appears to only bring more questions and not many solutions. The reliability of the copies that support the scriptures seem to be more intact than ever before. But, I do agree that there is a concerted effort in our culture, colleges and universities, to make the historical value of the bible appear as fiction.
I personally don’t have a problem with an old earth view, I think that it does fall into orthodoxy. Many great men of God held an old earth/universe view including J. Vernon McGee and W.A. Criswell.
John,
As a full blown YEC person I accept you as a Bible-believing, Gospel-loving, Spirit-filled, Washed-in-the-blood brother in Christ.
And those things are all more important to us as the Body of the Lord than our differing perspectives on creation.
Let us not divide over this less-than-primary point of doctrine.
peace.
Amen Mike
Ken,
I used to think the Earth was 6,000 years old, but after looking into the scriptures and science a little deeper, I discovered God cannot be wrong, and science is not wrong all the time. So, what do I do with the dilemma I found myself in? I discovered “The Gap” is not a theory. In fact, The Gap and science works quite well together for me. This explains why the Universe and the Earth can be trillions upon trillions years old. I do believe there is a difference between create and make or made. Since I’m talking to mostly preachers, I will use a sentence that appeals to you. Mary made a cake out of that which was created. I don’t expect a response because most of you just ran to the kitchen to get cake. Evolution doesn’t cut it for me.
Jess,
“Evolution doesn’t cut it for me.” Perhaps the first comment that I can even remotely agree with that you have made ever.
John Wylie,
That proves even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again. 🙂
Jess,
As I explained in the article above, there is no real dilemma. So there is no real need to resort to such fixes as the Gap Theory (especially since there is no textual evidence for any gap—it is shoehorned into the text only because some folks think it ought to be there).
In the context of Ken’s “for the sake of argument” I want to ask a couple of questions.
Without the evidence-based evolutionary theory, where in the Bible does anyone get a possibility of millions or billions of years?
If we are theoretically negating the physical evidence, is there cause to ever conclude such vast ages?
Good question… Its, the millions+, are not there anyway. Inference is the best case for those concerned with evolutionary theory.
Jerry, I am going to talk off the top of my head which does not house as many brain cells as it once did.
Some have mistaken the idea for a relatively “new” theory of cosmology–from perhaps a little less than a century before Darwin and hitting it’s stride with Darwin.
Evolution and an ancient age of the earth is predates Darwinian ideas by millennia. The Gilgamesh Epic or Enuma Elish (can’t remember which without my Googles) and other ancient cosmologies implied or necessitated an ancient earth. Creation often began from some “sea creature” or sea story of some kind.
The idea of an “eternal earth” (or eternal “stuff”) began to be articulated more specifically, apart from mythological cosmology, as early as Thales (6th B.C.). From there the quest for the “arche” or basic stuff of life began in earnest.
So, my point is: the idea of an ancient earth seems to be ingrained in the fallen nature of man. So, it would feel very comfortable to propose such whether the evidence was there or not.
Now, this impacts upon this post by suggesting that the issue is NOT how old is the earth, but whether it came about by Divine Fiat or some acausal substance (in which water, fire, earth, air, spermata, and atoms were early contenders). This issue of cosmology is a theological one much more so than a scientific or evidentiary one, though science would like to have us believe otherwise.
Jack,
I agree with you completely!
And I think that what Ken is trying to do is to get us to look at the Scripture alone, not science, not mythology, not archaeology, not the B.C. Comic strip, no evidence at all. Then, from the Scripture alone, can we decide how old Creation is?
Jerry,
You have it right, evolution is only a theory. Billions perhaps Trillions of years could have elapsed in the Gap between the first two verses in Genesis Chapter one. Someone said earlier that God created man, I have to disagree, God made man.
Hi Jess,
I used to believe in the Gap Theory. I dropped it for Scriptural and scientific reasons. Would be willing to talk about it some time, but really don’t want to send Ken’s comment stream off on a tangent.
Currently, the evolutionary establishment is pretty settled in on 14.5 billion years for the universe and 4.5 billion years for the earth. Yet there are some rumblings from the cutting edge evolutionary astronomers that a trillion years might be needed to accomplish their time and chance model. So, Jess, are you reading this recent stuff or are you a lucky guesser?
Jerry,
My friend, I haven’t read anything recent. To me the Gap is no theory, it answers all my questions, and uses the scripture to explain scripture.
Jess,
I used to think the gap theory did not violate the Scriptures until I read this from Exodus 20:
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 the sabbath day and made it holy.
This passage is in the middle of giving the Ten Commandments. Verse 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 the sabbath day and made it holy.”
To me, I see no room for the gap theory.
Verse 1 says this:
“Then God spoke all these words, saying,”
The word “day” here must seem to be a consistent time period, understood by man as such, so that they might grasp what God is telling them about the 7th day.
Thus the word “day” here represents an idea of time, a consistent idea of time.
Thus this seems to rule out two things:
One: that the first days could be longer then 24 hours.
and
Two: That God created outside these six days [the gap theory] since the heavens AND all that was in them as created in this six day time span.
To add to what I said above…
Some take genesis to be a synopsis of a man trying to explain God creating the world from his limited understanding.
But Exodus 20 has Moses telling us straight out that God said He created the heavens and all that is within them in 6 days.
When we add this testimony, the case for the 6 day creation idea seems worth understanding as the truth of God’s Word.
That what Ken is doing is seeking to explain the glaring discrepancy between the physical evidence science seems to have and the sure words of Jehovah we take by faith.
“Does it answer all the questions?” is not the test of a proper understanding of a passage of Scripture, but, “Does it come from the text or is it read into it?”
You know, I’ve read the first two verses of Genesis more times than I can count. But I just can’t seem to find any “gap” whatsoever. The whole thing flows smoothly, contiguously and uniformly, from beginning to the end of the week.
I still don’t get it. Old earthers believe the scientific evidence for an old earth, and don’t think it conflicts with scripture, only that it conflicts with a particular interpretation of scripture that we see no compelling reason to hold anyway. We seem to be being told that if we simply ignore the scientific evidence, then we can adopt the YEC interpretation of scripture. Well sure, but why would we want to? Old-earthers aren’t looking for reasons to become young earthers.
I still can’t quite get my head around the idea that God created a world that shows evidence of millions of years of death, but that there wasn’t really any death until 6000 years ago, but somehow that isn’t a deception.
Bill,
In reply to you, I would say that science is still short on the facts.
One is that they discount the flood which by its great water pressure could produce results that look like answers that time could only give.
And another thing is that most scientists [at least the ones speaking out] go beyond science and delve into the meta-physical, answering questions that their science has not given them answers to, but instead projecting their anti-god beliefs into their thinking and speaking.
When discovering something ‘new’ there can be various paths to follow down to seek the origins and causes. If some paths are ignored because, well, it just can’t be that, then the evidence is skewered and the conclusions reached falsely.
If in a murder investigation, certain clues are ignored because they seemingly have no bearing on the case, the detectives will not be using those clues to come to a decision in who the killer is.
Scientists, their objections notwithstanding, are under pressure from both their own beliefs and from the scientific community, to ignore possible clues that might sabotage the ‘message’ of evolution and of a godless creation.
Mike, you bring up some great points! Allow me to add to them. I majored in physics at UNCC and also studied Christian philosophy at CIU. Most scientists don’t understand the philosophical moorings of the scientific method; nor do they often understand the ideological presuppositions that guide the formation of their hypotheses. Logically speaking, scientific proof is never absolute. Never. An example that we know about is the formulations of general relativity. Before Einstein, we were locked into Newtonian physics. Newton’s methods were a foregone conclusion. But there was a problem. Engineers started delving into projects involving particles approaching the speed of light and the formulae weren’t working. Special relativity solved the problem by adjusting the clocks and distances for things travelling very fast. This opened the door for all kinds of new applications, like the conversion of matter to energy. Reality in temporal quanta is in extreme flux. What we experience is the apparently stable homogenization of countless different temporal relationships. In other words, scientists really have no idea how long everything took because it all happened at different rates. Calculating the Big Bang, for example, requires assuming a single temporal frame of reference. There’s no way to calculate multiple frames of a rapidly expanding universe. That’s why they can only speculate how matter became chunky enough to form different bodies of matter. They don’t have a clue and have no way of knowing for sure. So how did they come up with the age of the universe? It’s an obvious question to ask, but they can’t know some things so they have to assume those things. One thing is that they speculate that time passes relatively evenly after a certain point. They don’t know that it does. They can observe that it seems that way. But they can’t test to know for sure. But without making that assumption, they can’t come up with an age at all. There are many, many more assumptions just like that one that they make. All those assumptions have to be true or the conclusion is wrong. So in order to do the kind of science that allows them to keep doing science, they have to publish their conclusions as though the assumptions are all reasonable, and it helps if the conclusion fits the metanarrative of materialistic presuppositions. The problem is that we aren’t materialists. It behooves us to ask what the evidence… Read more »
I love this comment…Thanks Jim!
Jim, nice post. I particularly like your conclusion: “””The problem is that we aren’t materialists. It behooves us to ask what the evidence shows if something other than materialism is true, but materialism is the only philosophy allowed in the scientific academy and there is no scientific way to prove that it’s true.”””
This is precisely what I set out to demonstrate in my Master’s Thesis: “God As The T.O.E–The Existence of God in Light of New Developments in Quantum Physics.”
Assumptions are everything.
Thanks, Jack. I hope your thesis was well-accepted. It’s an important consideration and much could be said about it.
Jim,
I really appreciate your contributions to this discussion!
You seem to assume that evidence for an old age is settled simply because the prevailing theory states such.
You also assume that there is no scientific evidence for a young earth.
These are big assumptions. Scientific methods cannot examine the origin of the cosmos. It can only examine the results.
I reject the idea that scientific evidence necessitates the dogma of an old earth.
Mike,
We can debate the age of the universe, but my last comment is really about this post. While I find the post quite imaginative and interesting, it seems to suppose that old-earthers really just want to be young-earthers and this theory gives us a chance to jump back in to the fold. I understand I can’t really speak for all old earthers, but my point is that we don’t want to jump back into the fold. We’re quite happy where we are. We aren’t looking for a reason to become YECers, in fact I dare say many of us, if not most, have spent some time in that camp already and have rejected it.
Yes, we understand that scientists are fallible. Yes, we understand that sometimes they have ulterior motives. But so are theologians fallible and so do theologians sometimes have ulterior motives. We’ve looked at the evidence for an old earth, and find it credible. We know the arguments of AIG and their adherents and don’t find them credible. So here we are.
AIG tries to argue for a young earth and they do so from the evidence. I find that to be short-sighted at times, although I’m a fan of Ken Ham and AIG. Anyway, your rejection of their arguments does not answer my arguments.
You said you find the Old-Earth evidences “credible.” But what you ought to realize is that you ruled out a recent creation as soon as you decided that weighing the evidence was a credible thing to do. God is capable of recently creating an old earth, with all those evidences already intact.
This kind of statement is a little frightening. So even considering the evidence for an old-earth immediately destroys the arguments for a young earth? So are you saying that once you’ve decided on an interpretation, we should not ever consider the arguments of an alternative interpretation?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard an old earther claim that God could not have created a young earth, or a young earth that looks old. We just don’t think He did.
Not exactly, Bill. Old-Earthers make a strong case (I think) for an old earth from the physical evidence. But no matter how strong the house one builds, if it sits on sand instead of a solid foundation, it’s strength above the sand line will not be enough. One needs a solid foundation first, and then one can build the strong house.
What I’m getting at is that before the evidence is weighed, one must first determine whether or not an evidence-based argument is suited to answer the question at hand. I contend (for reasons set out in the article above) that the question of origins cannot be answered by any evidence-based argument. If the world was created billions of years ago, then the prospect of a recent creation cannot be disproven by physical evidence—since a recent creation could very well result in all the evidence that could be presented. And if the world was recently created, then the prospect of a very old creation cannot be disproven by the physical evidence either, since there are no “miracle particles” to prove the miraculous recent creation happened. Therefore, the question is not one to which evidence applies. So then, it does not matter one iota how strong the support for OEC is in the evidence.
I find most Old-Earthers on this to be somewhat circular when I point out that the evidence does not answer the real question. It’s as if they demand that it does apply merely because of the strength of the evidence. But this misses the point entirely: If God could create an earth that, by all scientific measurements, predated its own supernatural creation by billions of years, then what good is your evidence for determining how long ago the earth was created?
That is why I say that as soon as you decided that weighing the evidence was the credible thing to do in deciding the origins question, you had already ruled out a recent, miraculous creation. If you still believed in the possibility of a recent creation by fiat, then you would not be looking for evidence to tell you what it cannot tell you.
AIG does deal in evidence, but ultimately they are presuppositionalists. Especially the John Frame variety of presuppositionalism recognizes the value of different approaches. I’m in the middle of his book, Apologetics to the Glory of God. Bahnsen’s Always Ready is a good apologetic for presuppositionalism, but Frame’s work is a good start on how to make it practical. That seems to be the direction AIG goes with it.
You can find an article I wrote in defense of presuppositional apologetics applied to creation here: http://sbcopenforum.com/2013/10/10/young-earth-creationism-and-presuppositionalism-a-response-to-j-w-wartick/
Bill,
I do not wish to offend.
Maybe if you could lay out for me the tenets of the Old Age theory as you understand them, I might grasp your position better, brother.
thanks
Mike,
No offense taken. I’m not sure what you are asking for, so this is all I will say: The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the earth is really old. I see no reason to disbelieve it. I believe scientists are as fallible as anyone, including theologians, but I don’t think that the vast majority of geologists, paleontologists, astronomers and astrophysicists are wrong, or that they are colluding to deceive us. I just don’t. I believe God supernaturally created the universe, I just don’t think he did it 6000 years ago.
Bill, Thanks for the reply. Science has told us a lot based on theories with evidence interpretted. Some of the things science is telling us is that the earth is millions of years old, that life all came from a primordial goo, and that man evolved from apes. Of course they tell us other things as well, al based on their understanding of the evidence. Do you believe all of what science tells us? If you do not, on what basis do you pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe? I think one way we can approach the op that Ken has written, is to use the idea in it to rethink how we view the evidence that science relies upon for their conclusions. So IF and to empathize IF God created the world in a mature state, and thus making science found ‘facts’ unreliable for age guessing, what would be your basis for believing in an old earth creation? I gather from your answer that your OEC position is not biblically based. Here is what I see: the scientific community has evolved from one that assumed the world could be figured out because it was made by an intelligent and orderly God to one which, for the most part, has not only rejected the idea of a God-based creation, but also is seeking to promote a godless world view of science and all of life. Thus on two fronts I see the OEC theorists being challenged. The science they depend upon, which forms the basis for their theory, will continue to interpret the evidence they find in an anti-god manner so as to seek to discredit the Genesis account as well as any supernatural event [miracles and the resurrection of the Lord] as bogus. And the second front will be those who do hold to 6 day creation event, reacting to the opposition from the scientific community, and thus making creation theory a line in the sand. And as this conflict grows, your basis of support, the scientific communities ‘facts’, will be in direct confrontation with your understanding of the veracity of the Word of God, which is a goal they seek to achieve. What I would urge you to do, a well as all OEC people, is to highly reconsider your position based on the ideas that Ken has brought up. He can be… Read more »
Mike,
I don’t deny that what Ken has posited is possible. I just don’t think it’s compelling.
Some science is too compelling to ignore: The world is spherical, the earth revolves around the sun not vice versa, hail is produced by natural means, not kept in a storehouse, etc.
Just because someone explains a possible scenario by which YEC can be true, doesn’t mean it is true (the same for OEC). That’s my objection to the article. We won’t resolve the age debate, but we can discuss the merits of the article, which I appreciate.
I’m not the only one to notice this, or mention it. Most YECers are too polite to suggest that OEs are outside of orthodoxy, but it’s more of a wink-wink type of situation, as if YECers are the keepers of orthodoxy.
In the past it would not have surprised me to see a movement to make YEC and Premil Dispensationalism as official doctrines of the SBC, codified in the BFM. I now think people are wiser than that, but I’ll bet people would if they could.
Bill Mac,
Sir, I agree 100%. There was an old earth billions possible trillions of years before scientist came along. An awful lot of science supports the OEC. To me the OEC doesn’t intentionally support science.
Bill,
You said:
Well, I did give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that Old-Earthers (at least the ones who frequent SBC Voices) held firmly to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, and based on that, also agreed with the importance of maintaining proper practices and standards of exegesis (not affirming every man’s right to read what he wants into any text and teach it that way). Stepping off from this point, I assumed that you guys understood the importance of reading every passage of Scripture according to the plain, straight-forward, common-sense understanding unless there is a justifiable reason to look for an alternative understanding. In case you missed it, everywhere support for a recent creation is found in Scripture, it is by the plain, straightforward, most readily and easily understood meaning. Therefore, to opt for any other understanding requires a reason weighty enough to warrant dispensing with the plain sense of the passage. It’s a fact, Bill, that the weight by which the Old-Earth understanding is warranted comes mainly from the weight of the physical evidence. And since that evidence, for the sake of argument, has effectively been dismissed, it is now weightless and has no bearing whatsoever on the possibility that those creation passages ought to be taken in their plain, straightforward meaning. THAT, sir, is why I expect the Old-Earthers to “jump back in”—because the ground under their feet has caved in.
Ken: Sorry, but no it hasn’t. That’s my point. The ground hasn’t caved in, and we’re not going to jump. I appreciate the effort, that’s what these kinds of discussions are for, but you can’t claim victory quite yet.
Mike,
The verses in Exodus you referred to are so true, they support the Gap. God made, actually rearranged the Earth and all that is in it in six days and rested the seventh. Exodus doesn’t say he created the Earth and all that in it in six days, the scriptures say he made the Earth and all that is in it in six days. There is a difference between the words create and make. Remember I said Mary made a cake out of that which was created.
Jess, Mary made a cake and all that was in it? She made the flour? The eggs? The sugar? So Mary is not a good example for you. But your point is that the words create and make mean different things. So as you said earlier, God did not create man, He made him. Now Jess, I do not know who you are or what kind of training you received in the Bible. But I am just a good reader with a few tools to help me like Strong’s. So maybe, you can explain why I am wrong when I look at the Scriptures and see your position as invalid. First what I think you are basing your conclusion on. ~In the beginning God created [H1254 bara’] the heaven and the earth.~ [Gen. 1:1] Bara’ means to create ~And God made [H6213 ‘asah] the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.~ ‘Asah means to make or made. ‘Asah is the word used in Exodus 20. So your argument, if I have you right, is that God created the earth and all [Gen. 1:1] and later in the six days, formed it. So that in between these times there is a great *gap*. I hope I have you right and please forgive me and correct me if that is not your position. Well before I get to the Scriptures that debunk that idea, let me ask you a few questions. How does that explain anything? It doesn’t explain dinosaurs or any ancient type creatures. It doesn’t explain rock formations like the grand canyon. It doesn’t explain fossils since no life is yet formed [made]. It doesn’t explain tree rings, since there were no trees yet. I am sure it could explain some things, since I am no expert and do not know all that it could explain. So please enlighten me on what the gapp theory explains? But let us look at the Scriptures to see if God indeed did CREATE [bara’] the man and the things in the world despite your claims that He just made or formed them. Oh, He formed them alright, for how can you create something that you do also form or make. So my jo is NOT to prove that He did not form or make [‘asah] anything in those… Read more »
Mike,
What are you trying to do, give me a headache? God created the divine essence of man, but made him out of the dust of the earth.
God created the Heavens and the Earth, Gen 1:1. He did create them just like the Bible says. God made the sun and moon, which means He forced or moved them into place. He took them from that which was already created. He moved them around so they would benefit the Earth. The other verses you pointed out are just as easily explained.
Mike, God created every thing else out of existing material. As I said before The Gap answers all my questions. I teach the Gap, and the Gap only.
Mike,
One more thing, You remind me of my cousin, who had to have his right leg amputated. The day of the surgery his doctor had a heart attack. They had to bring in another doctor to do the surgery. The new doctor took off his left leg. His regular doctor got better after a couple of weeks, and came back and amputated his right leg, the one that was suppose to be taken off the first time. My cousin sued for 12 million dollars and dropped the case. He figured he might as well drop it, because he is like you, no leg to stand on.
On third-tier issues I teach all the common views with arguments for and against each one (with a disclosure as to my view so that they know my bias). I even teach traditional heresies just so that people will know what to avoid. The reason is to educate people so that they buy into a theology intelligently and that they have a solid foundation for building practical theology that bridges theological differences on third-tier issues. I refuse to simply tell them what to believe and leave them ill equipped to use it.
Jess,
You didn’t explain anything.
Man is more than just a body.
That God used dirt to form man does not mean that God did not also create man, for the spirit of man did not come from the created earth.
Now remember Mary? You said that she did not create the cake, she just made it. Your point was that there was a difference between the ideas represented by the words ~create~ and ~made~.
But now, after being showed Scripturally your error, you are quite content to conflate the ideas represented by these two words.
So now you would say that Mary did indeed create a cake.
Honest and straight forward people are the kind of people I like to debate with, for they can teach and be taught. Those who like to ignore the plain words of Scripture and twist and turn, who retract and add without explanation, have neither the intention to learn, nor the capacity to teach.
Thus I have no desire to interact with you.
Have a good day brother, and may His peace fill you.
Mike,
My very first paragraph said God created the essence of man, but God made his body. You are not a very good listener. I do not wish to interact with you either, but I still love you.
I’m sorry, Folks, my ISP was down for from 8 am est yesterday until I left for work. Now, I’m back and it works again. (Smart phones aren’t for me, either. I tried one for a while, then went back to a dumb phone). I’m glad to see a good discussion went on regardless. Let me get some coffee and try to catch up 🙂 .
Here is a question: for what purpose was the Book of Genesis given? Was it given 3500 years ago (+/-) in order that beginning in the mid-19th Century Christians would have something with which to refute Darwin’s theory of evolution, then beginning in the 20th Century, to refute theories on the age of the universe and the earth, the arguments (refuting these matters) based on concepts developed in 16th Century western European philosophy? Or was it given 3500 years ago (+/-) to refute the pagan theology of 3500 years ago (+/-) which held that every winter the earth died, and was in danger of falling back into primordial chaos unless the gods were bribed every spring with fertility rituals to re-create everything? In other words, does the purpose for which God gave Genesis (and some other passages in various Old Testament books too) make a difference in how and for what purpose the Book is used? What presuppositions are required to use it otherwise? Have “we” as Christian really examined those? Are they all valid?
John
John, I’ve never heard this argument before in regard to the discussion of origins. I’ve studied the ancient myths but never studied the idea that Genesis was a refutation of those ancient myths.
I’ve always believed that Genesis was written like the rest of the Bible to declare God’s heilsgeschicte, or sacred history. If Genesis were written merely as a refutation of other myths, I would expect a lot more detail than we have in just a few verses.
It seems to me that we twist ourselves into a theological pretzel when we give “science” more credit than it deserves.
I spent three years researching cosmology for my Master’s thesis. One statement that I found repeated many times goes something like this: “beware hitching your wagon to the latest theory in science because scientific theory is always changing.”
Take the simple model of the atom that any of us over fifty learned in school. We did experiments based upon the Bohr model. We got the results that the model indicated we should get. It was a settled truth in science that electrons revolve around the nucleus in predictable, measurable patterns.
That is not the model you will find in textbooks today as one having taught science in the last five years.
I personally do not think Genesis was written as an apologetic against false beliefs swirling in the ancient world. I believe it is a straightforward summary of real events.
Just because the “majority” believes something as Bill points out is most certainly the case, that does not mean it is correct.
Evolution and the “Big Bang” theory it spawned is by no means “settled” in the scientific community. The Big Bang Theory could justly be called the “Big Hole Theory” because very important issues are unaccounted for by the theory–as is true of evolution.
That’s my perspective on the issue. I respect those that disagree. I will only add that if we look for “science” to answer the question of origins, we have hitched our horse to a godless approach to life. I find that troublesome.
Jack, no offense meant but if you have never read that the creation accounts, especially in Genesis, are a refutation of Babylonian (and possibly pre-Babylonian) mythology, then you must not have not read much outside 20th Century SBC and conservative evangelical sources. This is what would have confronted Abraham “in Ur of the Chaldees” and would have been very important to he and his family. There are plenty of such sources. I am off today and at home, and all my resources are at the church, but I expect a Google search for Babylonian creation myths would turn something up.
John
John,
I appreciate the info you are supplying.
One thought it generated is this:
Assuming that some of what you are saying is true, that the Babylonians and others had a version of creation Moses wanted to counteract when he wrote Genesis, that does mean that what he wrote is not the truth of the matter. In fact, I would say that he wrote inspired by God to present the truth and to stand against the lies of pagan cultures.
blessings to you brother,
mike
Good point, Mike. Actually, I was not trying to say that the meaning of the creation account was exhausted when the Babylonian myths were refuted and and answered. What I do ask, however (and it is really a question, not a disguised statement), is this: how does the intent of the human writer impact a later interpretation of the text which was not even on the horizon when written? I would think this requires us to then get into various theories of inspiration, and the presuppositions in each of those. This is something I find lacking in most every discussion of creation and young verses old earth.
John
John, perhaps we are using the idea of refutation in different ways. I took your post to say that Genesis was a point by point refutation of the ancient myths. If that is what you are saying, I would not consider it a very good apologetic.
It has been quite a few years since I went down that road in seminary. As I said, I don’t recall any professor, or anyone that I read as assignments, indicating that such was the case of Genesis.
The fact that there were many ancient myths in regard to cosmology is well known. Now that you mention it, I do recall professors pointing to liberal scholars who took the Genesis as Apologetic Approach, or at least Genesis as an Alternative approach.
These opinions arose out of a liberal bias against Mosaic authorship and a late date for the Book of Genesis. An examination of Genesis will quickly show a distinct difference in approach from other ancient myths, in my opinion.
The fact of any similarity at all would not require any kind of borrowing or redaction but would arise out man’s common desire to make sense of existence.
So, I personally do not see Genesis being written against any sort of mythological backdrop, even though I would agree Moses knew of these myths from his life in Egypt.
I guess the idea of Genesis as a “response” to other ideas sits sideways with me.
By the way: little is ever “settled” in science by definition. This is because science continuously opens itself to scrutiny and further testing. Before the Bohr model, there was Sir J.J. Thompson’s model of the atom, which worked for a while, until research done by Bohr (as well as Heisenberg and others) called it into question. Such changes as this are not failings of science, but if anything, are its successes.
John
I was with ya, till here;
“Before the Bohr model…”
Then my eyes glazed over as you spoke of things way over my head. 😉
Then you recaptured me on the last sentence. LOL
Seriously, the little (very little) I know about science makes me chuckle most times when I hear or come across the phrase “its settled science” as you are right there is very little in science that is forever settled scientists are ever “reinventing understandings” as we go along.
On the other hand….
Psalm 119:89 – 91 “Forever, O Lord, your word
is firmly fixed in the heavens. Your faithfulness endures to all generations; you have established the earth, and it stands fast. By your appointment they stand this day, for all things are your servants.”
Something I recall from seminary (though I do not recall if it was a professor or something I read) is that it is not a question of whether or not to take the Bible literally; rather it is a question of when taking it literally means taking it factually and when it means taking it figuratively.
John
John I don’t think I used the word “failings.”
As you point out unsettled ness is the nature of science and the reason it can never give answers to the Absolute. It is merely one tool in an epistological tool chest. It is not even the most important tool–which is where the problem arises.
Most OE views seem to include some sort of rationale for death and decay prior to Adam’s sin, but Romans 5: 12 clearly shows death is a consequence of sin which entered the world through Adam. God’s original creation did not include death, aging, illness, etc.
Also it is difficult to take the genealogy of Luke 3: 24-38 in anything but a literal sense. While a generation skipped here and there might be explained, it would not be plausible to impose more than a few thousand years from Adam to Jesus. An OE view which includes the idea that humanity has existed for millennia would not really conform to this passage.
“Also it is difficult to take the genealogy of Luke 3: 24-38 in anything but a literal sense. While a generation skipped here and there might be explained, it would not be plausible to impose more than a few thousand years from Adam to Jesus. An OE view which includes the idea that humanity has existed for millennia would not really conform to this passage.”
What of an OE who contends that well the earth itself has been around for a while longer, man himself has only been around for about 6000-8000? That would answer that concern, would it not?
Tarheel,
But would it explain this passage from Mark 10:
~6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”~
Here Jesus equates the creation of man with the creation at the beginning. He would know! It is hard to imagine that Christ is speaking of a 4.5 million year [or more] beginning in a world where man has been around only 6-8000 years.
I’m not sure that Christ was teaching on creation (in fact I know he was not) at that point…he was referencing that marriage is a God ordained institution from the beginning….He no more is specific about ALL that that means than was Moses.
There is so much detail left out (for obvious reasons) of the biblical text of the creation account that, IMO there is lots of room within orthodoxy for somewhat varying opinions as to HOW it all happened – after, of course, the baseline of agreement that God and God alone did it by his own creative power and by his own words.
Tarheel,
Some passages mean one thing and to another, a different thing. So yes, there is room in orthodoxy for disagreement on this matter. We should not divide over it or call OEC anti-Bible, for they are not.
My guess is that science will seek to make the gap larger between their metaphysical beliefs that they draw from the physical evidence and the supernatural beliefs we hold as Christians, both camps: YEC and OEC.
Tarheel,
In Mark 10:6, From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Tarheel, notice the word made, in the Greek it means to place around. It supports the Gap. The word beginning in the Greek also means made. This to me says to me, In the beginning of the re-creation God made them male and female. Which supports the Gap between Genesis 1:1-2. Can I swear there is a Gap? No I cannot. But, I do think it’s on equal footing as what others might believe. If someone could show me a better theory I might accept it but, until then no. It would have to be in harmony with the scriptures.
Jess,
I am no Greek scholar I will freely admit. But I do have some skill in reading dictionaries and lexicons. I also teach Latin, referring to the Latin Vulgate often.
I know of no scholar that translates poiew in Mark 10:6 “to place around.” Nor do I know of any scholar that translates “arche” (Greek) or “initio” (Latin) as made, in the text above. The Hebrew, “reshith,” in Genesis 1:1 does not mean made, and is translated by the Septuagint with “arche,” that I’ve already said I’ve never seen translated “made.”
Could you share your resources that support your view that these words mean, “to place around,” as in to propose a “gap?”
Jack,
That sounds pretty reasonable.
Jack,
Of course creation in Genesis 1:1 does not mean made. God spoke the Universe and Earth into existence. But if you notice from there on God made all things using other things. For the ground brought forth, the sea brought forth, even Adam was made of the dust of the Earth. I don’t know what to say, it seems pretty squared away to me.
Jack, by me being an old coal miner, I have worked in different coal seams, from some of the lowest in elevation to some of the highest in elevation, these coal seams are made up of dense vegetation, covered over with earth because of some cataclysmic event. What I am saying there had to be time for the Earth to grow new vegetation in a dense form and covered again to make a new seam of coal. I have personally found fossils which was easy to find. I enjoyed finding them in different seams of coal.
To tell me the Earth is only 6 to 8 thousand years old is laughable. I’m not saying you are telling me this but some have said it.
Some of the seams of coal are from 80 to 500 feet apart. A seem of coal marks an era. Why there are so many seams of coal I don’t know.
It could have been when the devil was cast out of heaven during the time between Gen. 1:1, and Gen.1:2. In Gen. 1:1 I would imagine God had created a perfect Earth, but when the devil was cast out of heaven it brought nothing but chaos.
It also seems that in any discussion of Old Earth versus Young Earth, the Old Earth advocates typically don’t bring up the Flood and its cataclysmic effects on the Earth. I’m not sure that Old Earth advocates can adequately factor in a true world-wide, water covering the earth for a year, the great eruptions of the deep, etc. and what that actually would have done to the earth. I think the Flood is, with the texts of Ex. 20 and 31, quite substantial arguments for a Young Earth. We could throw Romans 5 into the mix as well.
Good night for now, folks. Maybe I can get back here tomorrow morning, if the discussion is still open then. If not, then thanks to all for a good discussion. Forgive me if I’ve offended anyone, as it wasn’t intentional.
Peace in Christ!
Ken,
Night? It’s morning in the USA. As some folks in my neck of the woods might say, “Where you at?” I’m guessing Asia – maybe the Pacific – although your blog says Ohio. I was born there.
Jim,
Ken works nights. Thus he sleeps days. What he means is that he is going to get his beauty sleep.
And the darkness he called Day, and the light he called Night.
David,
Don’t lose that sense of humor!
Good one, David!
Gotcha.
Ken, my sympathies. I worked 3d shift for three years and hated it. My body rebelled in all kinds of ways.
These discussions are interesting. This is a worthy topic to discuss.
As far back as Augustine, some faithful Christians have argued that the account of creation is intended to be a metaphor. But one can only go so far into the text before bumping into the historical nature of the text – people, places, etc.
We will never know exactly how to harmonize all the Scripture says with all that science says. But that’s o.k.
Jesus held a standard of truthfulness of the OT that is higher than any modern one – “Not one jot or tittle…”
The OT scriptures are more true than we are capable of realizing.
They are not simply the mythology of another religion, which is the error that many make when they are unable in their minds to reconcile Scriptural revelation with scientific discovery.
These things are mysteries that should not cause us to shy away from believing and teaching Scripture and being scientifically and technologically educated.
Also, we needn’t be apologetic about the difficulties in this area.
Those who try to weave a story of what we see today from nothing and from no God, really have the more difficult task. Christians can become too defensive about the challenge we face when it is actually materialists who face an insurmountable challenge. They, however, usually get away with an unexplained starting point and a boat load of unexplained and unproven assumptions. Christians have those, too, but ours are on the table. We allow them to avoid answering those questions because we are too focused on what the word “day” means or where Cain got his wife.
Jess, Bill Mac, Parsonmike,
I have taken the time to find you some sources for some of the things you have discussed. I list them in order of quality. I do not consider any of them less than good sources. All sites have a “search box”, just type in the key words and receive quality material.
1st creation.com
2nd icr.org
3rd answersingenesis.com
Parsonmike, you had asked for an explanation of the theories of theistic evolution. There are quite a few. It would take a very large article to explain them all. You obviously see that the information is important. Type in “theories of theistic evolution”.
Jess, I said before that I lost confidence in the Gap Theory due to Biblical and scientific arguments. Type in “Gap Theory”.
Bill Mac, you made a statement above about the vast majority of scientific evidence indicating an old earth. That is what I have been taught by culture and education also. It is very untrue. The vast majority of scientific evidence indicates a world vastly younger than evolutionary theory requires. Type in “Age of the Earth”.
Brothers, I mention these sources so you can check for yourselves. There really is no space to address them in Ken’s comment stream without sending the point of Ken’s post off on a major tangent.
Not quite. I said the overwhelming scientific consensus favored the old earth position.
According to whom? That’s the rub, isn’t it? We can always find scientists who support our view.
To find balanced views, you could also look at Reasons to Believe, Old Earth Ministries, and Biologos, to name a few.
Our own Ken Keithley of SBTS has an excellent article called “Confessions of a Disappointed Young Earther”
http://baptistcenter.net/journals/JBTM_10-2_Fall_2013.pdf
Bill Mac,
Thank you for correcting me. Your words said one thing, my bias said something else. Sorry to be annoying.
You are right about the differing interpretations that scientists often put upon the same data. I remember never-ending-lines of experts testifying before congress about whether The Strategic Defense Initiative” (Star Wars) would work or not. How typical that the Republican experts all affirmed the program and the Democrats all condemned the program.
I totally agree that the vast consensus of scientists favor the old earth view. I do wonder what percentage of this group also deny the resurrection. I know that many are Christians. But I would hazard the opinion that the Christians within the group would be in the small minority about the resurrection.
I will check the link you posted for me. Thanks.
Jerry: Not annoyed at all. This has been a pretty good comment thread, all things considered.
Bill Mac,
Really? I misquote you and then tell you how wrong you are based on my own obvious bias…and you are not even a little, tiny, minor bit annoyed?
And now I’m “finding fault” with your gracious attitude?
May God have mercy on us all.
Jerry: Not really, but I’ll go re-read it and see if I can work some up. 😉
That’s because Bill Mac is a pretty gracious dude, at least from what I’ve seen in his comments over the years. It’s a little harder to get him riled up. Now me I start off riled up.
Bill,
i read Ken Keithley’s article and found it interesting and fair
He pointed out that Ken Hamrick’s OP is not a new theory and that is more of an apologetic than a creation theory.
I do have a question for you and then back to reading from the inks you and Jerry provided.
What do you believe about the great flood and the number and types of animals that were init, and the extent of the flood waters?
thanks
Mike: Frankly I don’t know. I’m not trying to waffle here. I think OE adherents would tend toward a local flood view, and I’ve read compelling arguments on both sides. I haven’t taken a strong position either way. I think the issue with the flood is more about translation than hermeneutics but I’m not a theology major so I could be off.
I’m not quite satisfied with my answer. If someone holds to OE (and thus millions of years of life and death on earth) AND to a global flood with 2 or 7 of every living creature on the ark, I think YECers could fairly point that out as an inconsistency.
Bill,
Thanks for the honesty.
In reading one of the links Jerry gave me, it pointed to this passage from Mark 10:
~6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”~
Now to me, the plain easing of this passage is that Jesus is telling us that God made man at the beginning of creation.
This seems to rule out the gap theory.
Does my interp also rule out OEC?
Do you believe man was on the earth at the beginning of creation or do you believe man came many, many years later?
If the latter, how do you interp the words of Jesus here in this passage?
Thanks
Well, technically speaking even in the YE view, they weren’t made strictly in the beginning of creation, so Jesus is a little loose with his words here. Creation was 83% finished when Adam and Eve were created. I see your point, but I don’t think I’m ready to concede on the basis of those verses. I would say these verses aren’t about creation but about marriage.
Bill,
Thanks for your answer.
You are right in that the main topic of that passage is marriage, but God does not say unneeded things, but has purpose and meaning for everything He says.
So Jesus was a little sloppy there -eh?
Assuming that I am right in my YEC idea, Jesus would have said those words about 4000 years after the Genesis creation account occurred.
So “in the beginning of creation” would refer back to that first week including when Eve was created from Adam’s rib. I think that such an interp is reasonable and your objection without water.
Bill, I can’t answer all the questions my YEC theory brings up, so I don’t expect you to answer every question either, but my hope is that you ponder your position on just how much of the plain reading of the Word you are willing to gloss over in order to rely on science as your base for interpreting God’s Word in this matter.
My guess is that the gap between the answers science is giving and what the Bible is saying will continue to widen.
blessings brother,
mike
A whole lot of people run marathons. Everyone who completes the distance gets glory for the task. The one who does the best (fastest) gets more glory than the others.
We are not just talking about the marathon, but about what God Himself said He did.
And lesser glory, in the presence of clear statements by the “finisher” is more than interesting speculation. No one likes their righteous glory diminished.
And so my point is not about guilt or which of us is “better”. My point is about the magnitude of the importance of the question. Six days or not?
Jerry and Bill,
Thanks for the info.
-mike
All joking aside, the most important thing about this article is not changing minds (sorry Ken) but to prove we can discuss things like this in a civilized manner. We all have inconsistencies. I’m a Calvinist who often acts like a non-Calvinist. I’m an old earther who doesn’t want to give up a global flood and a literal Adam. I’m a moderationist who thinks alcohol is generally a really bad idea. I hate the Yankees but think Dave Miller is a moderately decent guy. We’re inconsistent because we’re human, and the things we are dealing with are not simple because they are real, and real things usually aren’t simple. I think the world can learn more from our discussion than from our unanimity.
I have read some of the posts here and enjoyed them as well as looking at the interaction and though I have not ever commented here it has been some really good stuff. Today however in reading Ken Hamrick’s essay I must confess this essay and its claims are highly mistaken and disturbing. As others have already noted two of Hamrick’s comments in particular are troubling. Early in the essay he proposes: “I propose that—for the sake of argument-–we eliminate the evidence question all together.” This statement completely goes against the nature of the Christian faith and the Christian worldview. How so? Because the Christian faith and the Christian worldview involves a total dedication and search and openness to what is true. And how do we know what is true? While some things are known immediately and directly (e.g. God designed my eyes to see things in my environment, so when I look and see my wife in my immediate environment I know that it is really her and I do not need logical syllogisms to prove it!). Other things are known via our mind and reasoning (e.g. for example when we are interpreting some text, be it the daily newspaper, a memo at work or even the Biblical texts). And when interpreting a text we are using our minds, following sound rules of interpretation (e.g. when interpreting scripture we use the grammatico-historical method of interpretation), examining the evidence and coming to a conclusion based upon available and relevant evidence. Thus for a Christian if he/she is acting in line with the Christian world view, there is no such thing as discovering truth without examining available and relevant evidence. As Christians we are to use our minds, this is part of being a faithful disciple of Jesus (cf. Love God with all your heart soul and mind). So this proposal to “eliminate the evidence question all together” completely contradicts the Christian world view and its commitment to discovering truth by carefully and rationally considering available and relevant evidence. This proposal is similar to saying: let’s just throw out rationality, throw out our minds and see what truth we arrive at. This is not good reasoning nor is it what God wants us to do with our minds. And doing so “for the sake of argument” fails as well, as a good argument will also involve a presentation of the available… Read more »
Robert,
Great comment.
I work with Ken, and he probably is sleeping now because he works nights, and I am laid up due to surgery. So if you do not mind, and i hope he doesn’t, let me address your concerns.
First, Ken is a zealous guy whose confidence overflows into his writings. I agree with you on the idea that he has gone somewhat overboard with this theory.
I hold to YEC simply because it seems exactly what the Bible is saying. I realize there are problems with outside [re:scientific] proclamations. These proclamations SEEM to be based on the facts they have found in the field, which SEEM like facts to them. I can in no way dispute whether what they have found in the field and their conclusions from the evidence they promote.
So even as you rightly say that our interps of the Bible are not infallible, EVEN as we are being led of the Spirit into truth, so also are the interps of scientists, many of them against even the possibility of a supernatural creation, are to be even more questioned as to their validity.
OEC and gap people can be and are sincere Christian brothers and sisters who love the Word, love the Lord, and love the Body. I assume you do as well. And as important as this issue is, it is not important enough, at least not now, and maybe never, to allow our differing opinions to divide us as seek to be witnesses for Jesus and proclaim the Gospel near and far.
My advice to you is to understand that what Ken is proposing is an apologetic theory that explains the discrepancy between the plain reading of Genesis and the interpretation of the scientists in the field. It is not the only way to understand the two, but one way.
Grateful for your service to our King.
mike
Hello Mike, “I work with Ken, and he probably is sleeping now because he works nights, and I am laid up due to surgery. So if you do not mind, and i hope he doesn’t, let me address your concerns.” Was Ken asleep when he came up with his theory? 🙂 🙂 “First, Ken is a zealous guy whose confidence overflows into his writings. I agree with you on the idea that he has gone somewhat overboard with this theory.” The theory is not only “overboard” (i.e. making an argument in which you tell others to ignore and get rid of available and relevant evidence) it also leads to the conclusion that God himself is deceiving us. That will not only not fly with nonbelievers but believers ought to be alarmed as well with any theory in which God intentionally misleads us. “I hold to YEC simply because it seems exactly what the Bible is saying. I realize there are problems with outside [re:scientific] proclamations. These proclamations SEEM to be based on the facts they have found in the field, which SEEM like facts to them. I can in no way dispute whether what they have found in the field and their conclusions from the evidence they promote.” As I am sure you already know there are problems with the YEC interpretation within the text (e.g. the meaning of “yom”) and also a major problem with the purpose of Genesis 1 and 2. Moses did not write this text to “prove” whether young earth creationists or old earth creationists are right. Instead he was writing an apologetic essay. Intended to show that the gods of the Egyptians were false gods, that there was only one true God, the God of Israel, and that He had created the entire world ex-nihilo (out of nothing). The text itself tells us WHO created the universe and WHAT he created (i.e. everything): but not HOW or WHEN. A very helpful book on this neglected purpose is: “In the Beginning… We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context” by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. They get into what the Egyptians and others at that time believed and how Genesis directly contradicts and refutes all these pagan beliefs and ideas. Genesis 1 and 2 then are not meant to be “scientific” but instead are “apologetics” for its first readers. Regarding the evidence outside… Read more »
Robert, Thanks again for your reply. The theory Ken is giving us is not new, although I do not know if it is new to him or not. Let me take your points as you made them. As to the “deceiving” you bring up. I think Ken has already addressed this, but let me hit a few points. The supernatural is many times observed as it happens, like Lazarus coming from the tomb, the man born blind seeing, the fish and loaves eaten by the thousands, the resurrection of the Lord, but they are not scientifically evidenced, in that after the event is over there is no scientific date left to verify the event’s veracity. Therefore to accept these events as true by un-observers, like you and me, we have to rely on someone else and their witness. And as time passes the amount of people we must rely on increases. So we rely on Moses to give us the account of Red Sea crossing, and we rely on every transcriber who copied it from ancient scroll to scroll, and from those who transferred it from Hebrew to Greek to English. Ultimately we are relying on God to tell us the truth of His supernatural works through the process of getting the Bible to us in our own languages. And we believe these acts as true, not based on evidence we can verify, but based on trust in God and the Bible as His Word. Those who do not trust our God and His Word, do not believe that Jesus walked on the water and that He was God in the flesh, who rose from the dead. They think the Gospel truth is foolishness. In other words, they are deceived, believing the lie and not the truth. Now what Ken, and others before him, is putting forth is a theory that, if true, reconciles the evidence scientists find with the words of God we take as truth. What is assumed is that there is no supernatural creation as per the plain reading of the Bible tells us, but instead, the Bible is either just wrong, or that it is not telling us plainly the truth and must be apologized away to bring it in line with the physical evidence. In this case, the evidence is taken as more true than the plain reading of the Bible. Now it is not… Read more »
Robert and Mike,
Please let me take this opportunity to risk putting my foot in my mouth.
I don’t work with Ken, barely know of him.
But I don’t think Ken is offering a stand-alone theory. I am rather sure he understands a lot about the scientific theory and evidences of virtually all theories having to do with the Creation-Evolution question.
Isn’t Ken’s post about a hypothetical situation? He is presuming that we are able to separate our cultural bias and secular education from the question of origins, and, instead, draw conclusions from the Scripture alone.
Yeah, I’m laughing as I write this. His idea has merit, and is a great exercise in attempted objectivity, but bloggers are not well practiced in thinking this way. Especially Pastors.
And there is the fact that Ken doesn’t have to change his own bias to participate. In my opinion, following Ken’s “hypothetical case” leads one toward Young Earth Creationism.
Of course, in blogs, I am sure you will let me know if you think I am wrong. I do that wrong-thinking thing sometimes.
Jerry,
I know that Ken reads a lot.
And I think your words have much merit.
But I can not be sure if you are right or not, so I will leave that to Ken to verify or disagree.
And oh yes, there is no doubt that if you have no physical evidence left pointing to an old earth, than there is no Biblical reason to hold to a YEC, at least tentatively.
And Ken realizes that many YEC people like Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis is fighting an uphill battle in seeking to reconcile the physical evidence with the Bible.
The problem is that the evidence seems so real, its conclusions so inescapable, that going that direction will eventually lead to the conclusions that the Genesis story is a myth UNLESS it is taken by faith, and the evidence is discounted in some way.
So Ken and other YEC people are saying don’t discount the Bible’s message here, use it to interpret the evidence, not the other way around. And one way of doing that is with the mature earth creation idea.
In the past, whenever men judge the Bible with secular ideas of truth, they lose their way and spiritual problems magnify. “We have to find the real Jesus, not that doer of supernatural miracles that the conservative evangelicals claim he is, but that good teacher misunderstood by the masses.”
My guess is that the OEC, though lovers of the Word they are, will find it harder and harder o reconcile the physical evidence with the Bible and could cause some of them to not give the Word its rightful place in their minds for discerning truth.
That in looking forward to the great apostasy, whenever it may come, the world will discount the Bible as a truth book because the physical evidence [as interpreted] stands against it with increasing force. And that the things we stand for, not just God creating the world, but those things which make us distinct from the world will be those things that we hold only by faith alone.
Oops This paragraph left out the word ‘not’:
And oh yes, there is no doubt that if you have no physical evidence left pointing to an old earth, than there is no Biblical reason ~NOT~ to hold to a YEC, at least tentatively.
Mike,
I agree with what you have said.
Current findings of soft tissue in many fossilized animals dating at up to a million years (or more) is causing cutting edge evolutionists real problems. Now they have to find reasons why the laws of physics do not apply to the breakdown of organic molecules.
The complexity of DNA and the molecular operation of proteins and organelles in cells is blowing away any chance that the arrangement could be by chance. Cutting edge evolutionary theorists do not yet have a theory to explain it.
There are also slight hints that the whole Big Bang (quantum singularity) may be seriously flawed. Dark matter theories are being challenged.
Frankly, the 14.5 Billion year theory for the origin of the universe is going down.
These are additional things that can be researched.
Not that I think you are addicted to learning new things or anything.
Jerry,
I am already way behind on the info you and Bill suggested. But I can not do much tomorrow, but I can go to church Sunday. And I have all next week to heal, and maybe another week after that. So maybe i will learn some new things.
mike
Mike,
Get well soon. I’m willing to guess it is not your fingers that are ailing, Bro.
Foot.
Robert, You stated: […] Hamrick’s essay […]and its claims are highly mistaken and disturbing. As others have already noted two of Hamrick’s comments in particular are troubling. Early in the essay he proposes: “I propose that—for the sake of argument-–we eliminate the evidence question all together.” This statement completely goes against the nature of the Christian faith and […] worldview […] Because the Christian faith and […] worldview involves a total dedication and search and openness to what is true. And how do we know what is true? While some things are known immediately and directly (e.g. God designed my eyes to see things in my environment, so when I look and see my wife in my immediate environment I know that it is really her and I do not need logical syllogisms to prove it!). Other things are known via our mind and reasoning (e.g. for example when we are interpreting some text, be it the daily newspaper, a memo at work or even the Biblical texts). And when interpreting a text we are using our minds, following sound rules of interpretation (e.g. when interpreting scripture we use the grammatico-historical method of interpretation), examining the evidence and coming to a conclusion based upon available and relevant evidence. Wow, Robert. “Highly mistaken […] disturbing […] troubling […] completely contradicts the Christian [faith and] worldview”? I must have really hit a nerve. There’s nothing like an effective argument to rile up the opposition. I contend that the really disturbing aspect of my argument is that it brings to light your own inconsistencies with the Christian faith and worldview. You said, “[…] the Christian faith and […] worldview involves a total dedication and search and openness to what is true.” I agree in part. But that total dedication is not just to any so-called truth, but only to real truth—and when it comes to truth that is revealed in Scripture, our “openness” is to the Bible and the Spirit, and not an openness to all that the God-hating world insists is true. You said, “And when interpreting a text we are using our minds, following sound rules of interpretation (e.g. when interpreting scripture we use the grammatico-historical method of interpretation), examining the evidence and coming to a conclusion based upon available and relevant evidence.” Scripture needs no outside authority, such as the Godless science of the world, to determine what it really… Read more »
Robert, you make some very good points. I have not had time to digest them all, but I certainly tend to agree.
John
A general note on origins: most of the discussions of evolution involve the biological realm of science and the disciplines that support it–chemistry, geology, etc.
The cutting edge of discussions in regard to cosmology is in the area of theoretical physics, particularly some new iteration of string theory. This is a very complicated area of study and most people (myself included) lack the mathematical horsepower to wade into the deep end.
Many theologians who study quantum physics, or physicists who are also professional philosophers or theologians, have recognized that the scientific theory of strings only substitutes one “singularity” (scientific) for another (theological). In other words, we are right back to the pre-Socratic philosophers trying to define the “ultimate.”
Science can do nothing more than redefine the “singularity.” Science cannot account for it.
So, expect this discussion to continue until Jesus comes.
Here, Jack, we are in complete agreement. I have heard it put as, “Science attempts to answer the question, ‘How?’ while theology tries to answer the ‘Why?’ question. It does not mean they are contradictory, but rather will get somewhat different results because they are answering different questions. The trouble erupts when one side (and both have been guilty) tries to answer the other’s question.
John
John,
I am in some agreement with the general point of what you say. And I want to offer some similar situations that may add scope to our discussions.
The Bible has one thing to say about soul and spirit, and problems and solutions with human motivation and behavior. Behavioral Science says something quite different.
The Bible has one thing to say about crime and punishment, justice and judgment. The Justice System says something quite different.
The Bible has one thing to say about the beginning of life, the worth of man, and the end of life. The Medical profession says something quite different.
I am not insinuating that you are ready to compromise AT ALL on the conflicts between God and mankind. I know that I am occasionally tempted to do so, and quite embarrassed when I find myself farther down a secular path than I ever want to be.
And I think the history of many denominations in America have included their giving away their prophetic voice in various areas of Biblical instruction. Just one step at a time.
John,
I am sure there is a rational explanation for HOW Jesus walked on the water or HOW He fed the 5000 with one boy’s lunch, but I do not think that even if He did those things today that science could tell us the HOW. Do you?
So I draw this conclusion. that where the supernatural is done, science, as we know it, is without understanding and cannot explain the HOW.
Now I believe that creation was a supernatural act that due to its nature leaves science without the ability to tell us HOW or WHEN. And we also know that is can not be duplicated by scientists and it was not observed by man.
Science, I predict, will never find the ends of the created universe or delve into and find the smallest particle of creation. They will always find something smaller, and find more million miles of space our further than they can imagine.
Much peace to you,
mike
Well, I read it carefully, Ken, and appreciate in a brotherly way the effort that went into it. It’s a sermon, right? All the second person pronouns, the locked and loaded rhetoric? That’s fine. There is a considerable audience for such…but I’ll pass. David Rogers said much of what I would have said, and did so in a much better fashion.
Bill Mac,
I read a few articles from your suggested link, Biologos.
The best thing I can say is that they seem reasonable and love the Lord.
I just could never give up what the Bible says about creation, especially about Adam to ever buy into their position.
Although I didn’t read every word of every article, the one thing I found must disturbing/puzzling was this quote:
~~~God is the provider. He provides for his creatures in each moment, giving them what they need to survive, adapt and thrive in communities of life. The Bible speaks of God feeding and caring for animals (Jonah 4:11, Psalm 104), and modern evolutionary science is shedding light on how God has arranged complex ecosystems that support many different kinds of creatures together. But God provides for his creatures even at the genetic level, giving species a measure of biological “creativity” to help them respond to new challenges. As biologist Richard Colling says, “Evolution is not about the imposition of death and destruction and survival of the fittest. Those things are a part of it, but not the main core of what evolution is. . . [The] evolutionary process of creating duplicate genes that give rise to new possibilities [is] redemption, it’s possibility, and it’s hope.”~~~
This was in a section on how to understand God better through evolution.
“God provides for His creatures to give them a measure of creativity to help them respond to new challenges…. [The] evolutionary process of creating duplicate genes that give rise to new possibilities [is] redemption, it’s possibility, and it’s hope.”
Redemption, possibility and hope to whom? The creatures of the earth? Man?
I suppose if we all came from the same primordial goop, we are all related in some way whether bird or bug or snake or bear or man or virus. I all can say is…ugh.
Mike,
The OE camp is a diverse bunch and Biologos are just a few of the voices in it. Like anything else, there will be some stuff you can agree with and some you can’t. Hugh Ross (reasons to believe) is an old-earth creationist who rejects evolution. Not saying he’s completely right either, just pointing out it’s not a monolithic group.
Bill,
Thanks for the info.
I will check out reason to believe next.
Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The plain reading is that the heavens and earth were made in the day God created them.
This creating and making was part of all God’s work as we read in Exodus 20:
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 the sabbath day and made it holy.
We know it was his work for Genesis 2 tells us:
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 if God created one day and waited, what, millions of years to finish making the earth, Then why did He rest only after the final 6 days.
Likewise where did the vegetation come from, since it had not yet been made?
Ken, This is my last comment as I must move on to other things. Again, let me bring the focus back to my problem with your original piece. I do not reject the theory that you propose (that God created a “mature” earth). I like David Rogers am agnostic on the age of the earth but believe firmly that what exists God created (and not by evolution). I do not reject that faith requires the work of the Spirit to confirm what Scripture tells and to overcome our sinful nature that desires to reject the reality of God. I do not reject the veracity of Scripture as the Word of God sufficient as the Word of God to speak truth in all that it affirms. I reject the premises “that—for the sake of argument-–we eliminate the evidence question all together” and “the real question is whether you are willing to accept revealed truth in spite of the evidence or prefer to reinterpret revelation to make it accord with the evidence.” I further reject the premise that the resurrection is an example of why these premises are valid and thus analogous to accepting by faith YEC. Tarheel above claims that the path you are on is a slippery slope. The reason I am so adamant about this argument is that not only is it a slippery slope, it is a dangerous slope. Your disagreement with the conclusions of the scientific community has led you to reject sound science outright. This presents at least two difficulties. 1) It has you in the unenviable position of rejecting evidence for the resurrection. When evidence is presented to you, you reject its validity. When its validity is demonstrated, you claim it is the wrong type of evidence (historical as opposed to scientific). While I accept that most people would consider the historical accounts of the writers of the Gospels as historical evidence difference is one without distinction. What I mean is that it precisely the evidence that scientist should and would consider. For example a doctor willingly listens to the account of his patient describing what is wrong with him. He does not reject that as the wrong type of evidence. He considers more evidence than that, but he still accepts their testimony as valid evidence. An engineer when exploring a building failure takes into account the testimony of witnesses and the measurements of other… Read more »
William, Ken is probably at work now and probably won’t reply until tomorrow. But I would like to give you a reply from my perspective. As to your point [1] To accept the witness of the Bible as to the resurrection of Jesus, you must first accept the Bible as an historically accurate book and that the resurrection is real possibility. Unlike the examples you gave, where the testimony in each case was credible, and possibly heard before from other sources about similar events, the resurrection is an incredible testimony, especially when combined with the idea that it was God in the flesh who was crucified and died. Simply Incredible. Certainly not testimony usually heard and probably never heard. Such incredible testimony not only is had to believe but the underlying reasons for His death cut against the very grain of the listener’s heart. Second, it was testimony not of a regular sort but of the supernatural. Third, He only appeared to believers until His ascension, whereafter he appeared only to Paul, but not recognizable by Paul’s companions. Therefore the physical evidence of His resurrection: the empty tomb and the grave clothes easily led to other conclusions because it was too FANTASTIC to grasp that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Thus no one believed simply by that evidence. Likewise no one believes simply by being told the story second hand [the proclamation of the Gospel] but as you agree it takes the work of the Spirit in conjunction with the Gospel to bring about faith. Those He appeared to of course are in a different place. But they all were His disciples. Based on these objections to your [1], I think that your objection to Ken at this point falls short. Just my opinion. On part [2]. Since I never experienced this and do not know of any first hand stories of anyone who has, I can only ask questions as to what it might be and what it seems to be. I really have not learned enough about OEC to understand how they deal with the Genesis story that might give them some help in dealing with the scientist and the science they encounter in school. Do you know? And could you enlighten me? As to YEC, I think that though they try, they are way behind in keeping up young and old to deal with college challenges.… Read more »
William,
Let me put it like this,
A jury in a murder trial hears two sets of narratives, the prosecution and the defense, each presenting evidence as to why they are right and why the defendant should be convicted or set free. The jury has to decide which narrative sees true to them. If they have substantial doubts of the prosecution’s narrative, they are to set the person free.
As Christians, we too get two narratives, the Word of God and the world’s. But though we agree that the Word’s narrative should be first and foremost in our minds, it does not mean that we can not listen to the world’s and also learn a few things. The problem comes when these narratives are vastly opposed. Then we have to consciously decide to either put the Word ahead of the World and use the Word’s narrative to help us understand the world we live in, or use the world’s narrative to help us understand the Word’s narrative.
And what I think is happening is that these two narratives are separating tremendously. We see this in the area of marriage, of the sanctity of life [abortions], and we are seeing it in the scientific community as it addresses supernatural beliefs.
And the church is being separated by these things as some denominations and individual churches and individual Christians follow after the world’s narrative at the expense of the Biblical narrative.
Now I am not saying you or any OEC [which you may be or not] is going down that sad road. But I think the road is widening up and many will go down that road, even as many have already.
I don’t want to be your convice-r, but my hope is that you will ponder these things anew with your Teacher and Guide. And follow Him wherever He leads you.
I believe he works all out to the good of us, for we love Him.
Excellent answers, ParsonsMike! You have my vote for MVP in this discussion.
Brothers, In reviewing the comments made in my absence, it has become clear to me that I should have been clearer—especially concerning what sort of evidence I was referring to when I suggested that we disregard the evidence. For example, I commented: This is the knife’s edge that will cut through the confusion: a supernatural, miraculous, divine act leaves no evidence; therefore, to give weight to evidence is to close one’s eyes to the possibility of the miraculous event, while to believe the miracle is to close one’s eyes to the evidence—two mutually exclusive presuppositions built on faith (one one faith in the evidence, and the other on faith in the revelation). When I said that “to believe the miracle is to close one’s eyes to the evidence,” I assumed that all would understand that I meant the evidence against the miracle. There is no reason we need to close our eyes to the evidence for a miracle. And when I said, “a supernatural, miraculous, divine act leaves no evidence,” I had in mind only that kind of evidence that scientists might seek—such as what is analyzed in the scientific theories of origins. Miracles, whether creation or any other Biblical miracles, have often had eyewitnesses, and those witnesses often directly observed and experienced those miracles. The man whose withered hand was stretched forth to become whole and well certainly carried with him all the scientific evidence he could ever want. But while these evidences are compelling and some present a seemingly undeniable case, they remain—by scientific standards—short of absolute certainty. I am far from alone in this idea. Millard Erickson, a Baptist theologian of high esteem among Southern Baptists, said the following in his Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), p. 247: There are a number of reasons why the illumination or witness of the Holy Spirit is needed if man is to understand the meaning of the Bible and be certain of its truth. (Neither the church nor human reason will do.)[…] The final reason the special working of the Holy Spirit is needed is that man requires certainty with respect to divine matters. Because we are concerned here with matters of (spiritual and eternal) life and death, it is necessary to have more than mere probability. Our need for certainty is in direct proportion to the importance of what is at stake; in matters of eternal consequence, we… Read more »
ParsonsMike has carried my burden in this discussion in my absence—at times better than I could have. I am grateful he was here when I could not be.
Thanks much, Mike!
Good discussion all the way down. Jumpin’ in here at comment 184? One must be a student of history in all this I think. Ideas have consequences. Where do the ideas come from? Well, we need to check them out. As pertains to this discussion, where did the idea of millions and billions of years come from? From history, as we know, the Church believed in a 6×24- day mature creation and approx. 6000 year old cosmos and earth for 1800 years since inception. This wasn’t a ‘novel’ idea, as it plainly comes forth from Scripture. So what changed the Church’s position? Ideas from secularists. Ah, yes, the Church’s age old problem – compromise with the world. Bottom line, an old earth position is to adopt a secularist position. Why would a Christian do that?
There is only one truth. So when there is a contradiction or an apparent contradiction between “science” and “the Bible” then our understanding using input from one or both must be wrong. Just because someone purports to “believe the Bible” and hold to its authority and inerrancy does not necessarily mean that this person has a correct interpretation. Similarly, just because a scientist is a scientist does not necessarily mean that he/she jettisons belief in God or the supernatural. The trick for me is to look to both “faith” and “reason” and try to find a cosmology that fits both. I don’t ever want to toss any fact or conjecture that could inform my decision. I weigh all bits of evidence and assign each proper weight. Science is a cool discipline because it is self correcting. If we just do empirical studies and see the results — without trying to be politically correct and only trying to support a-priori assumptions then science will be of great assistance. A case in point. It was generally accepted in science that there was no beginning event such as what most Christians mockingly call the “Big Bang”. The “big bang” was described in the 20th century as a result of observations. The Big Bang is our best friend because it is consistent with the idea that the universe started at some finite time and came from nothing. Prior to this the default cosmology was that the universe is “static” and had no beginning. This is the Greek / Roman viewpoint where God and Nature are basically the “same”. Obviously, this model is totally out of sync with any reading of Genesis. Even up until the 1950s there were a few scientists who subscribed to the steady state cosmology model. Now there are a number of independent measurements and observations, including the “cosmic background radiation” Nobel Prize winning discovery which supports the “big bang”. Using standard candles in the universe (i.e. certain stellar objects with certain spectral signatures which have a certain absolute brightness) then it is possible to look at these objects and see how far away they are. The problem is that the spectral lines — even though that have the telltale signature are shifted to the red end of the spectrum. This “red shift” is due to the fact that they are receding from us. This is Doppler shift. Many such observations… Read more »
I realize Dave Miller desires SBC VOICES to become a blog that entertains serious theological discussion in an orderly, gracious, and respectful manner. I know he has worked hard toward that goal and I salute him for it. HOWEVER:
Today at 3:30 the CRIMSON TIDE under the coaching genius, ST. NICK SABAN, shall stomp a mud hole in the FL GATORS big enough to drive a D 10 dozier through with room to spare!!
Based upon this fact all sane people who frequent this blog should rise up and shout:
ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!!
I do not like Florida and I cannot stand Alabama…so I’ll be doing something of value during that time instead of wasting time on that.
I think that the way some of the OEC characterize the superficial appearance of age view is errant. They present it as though it is deceptive, but I just see it as a natural result of God calling creation into existence in maturity. If indeed, God created Adam in maturity he would look much older than he actually was. I do believe that OEC proponents have some very good arguments on certain points, I just don’t believe that this is one of them.
I would like to ask a question from the OEC folks and it’s not designed for argument, I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from: Do you believe that man evolved from lower forms? Do you believe that man is a highly evolved animal?
John:
This will be my last comment. I guess I shouldn’t answer here regarding Old Earth Creationism, because I am NOT an OLD EARTH guy only a OLD UNIVERSE guy.
I don’t hold to evolution. But I do hold to the idea that God did stuff incrementally — such as making men from dirt.
I don’t know why this is but, for some reason, people seem to automatically conflate all four of these concepts:
(a) holding to an old universe view,
(b) holding to an old earth view,
(c) holding to evolution
(d) embracing materialism
I think we could make more progress by separating these various points and arguing them “bottoms up” based upon BOTH “scientific” and “Biblical” evidence.
Too much argumentation around here involves supporting a point you already hold to rather than being open minded and letting both faith and reason inform you.
For decades I was guilty of arguing against the Young Earth view but I didn’t really know (and still don’t know) what I’m talking about to engage that point. I don’t have the pre-requisite scientific knowledge in earth and life sciences — such as biology, geology, or chemistry to have paid the price of admission to enter the debate.
Relative to the age of the universe. I have done at least the first tier of my homework. I have some graduate level exposure to physics and some “entry level” seminary training so I guess I can at least enter the fray.
The reason I like William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross is because those guys know what they are talking about. They can hold their own in a debate. They are not novices like me.
CB:
Rolling tides are a powerful agent when they are unleashed by a unbeatable force.
Maybe tidal activity had something to do with “floating Noah’s boat.”
Roger Simpson,
I don’t know if the TIDE had anything to do with “floating Noah’s boat.” However, I do know that Bear Bryant walked across the Coosa River twice, the second time with Joe Namath riding on his shoulders.
You know, I think I saw that.
John
After reading the post and the many comments, I realized that the truth is that the world was created just a minute ago. All the things that we think we know and our thoughts about things were also created in that instant–an instant ago.
This is just as reasonable as “the world was created ‘old’ some 6K years ago.” And it deals with the bad things that God allowed to happen–they really did not happen. They were just created as part of our memories along with everything else.
I feel so much better.
Bennett,
This has already been answered. As believers, we insist on what the Holy Spirit has convicted us as true: Scripture is our source of truth. Since Scripture does not indicate in any way that all was created moments ago, then your sarcastic theory has no basis and is false.
Scripture certainly does not say that it was created
“old” 6K years ago either. Was yours a theory or just your comments.
This has to be one of the… After some thought, I just can’t find anything that fits. I still like what I proposed and feel that you have no basis for discarding it that does not apply to your posting too.
What did you propose Bennett? What I saw was a sarcastic caricature of YEC beliefs. You know instead of making drive by comments actually engaging in dialogue would be more helpful.
Hello John, It is nice to be back on our usual footing (no sarcasm in that :)). You are absolutely correct about the sarcasm in the remark. However, it still seems to me that my comment was just as valid as Ken’s thesis for the original posting. If he wants to propose that the earth was created “old” some 6K years ago, it seems just as fair for me to propose that the earth was created “old” some 6 seconds ago. I still see no reason that my (sarcastic) thought is not just as valid as his (cynical?) thought.
As best I can tell, there is exactly as much support for my thought as there is for his. And I certainly don’t think that either of them can withstand even the smallest amount of “critical” scrutiny. He wants to claim scriptural support, but how can he do that any more than I can? But never let it be said that an obvious shortage of facts discouraged Ken.
When I first read Ken’s posting, I was convinced that he was being sarcastic too. But then I reviewed what I know about Ken’s usual writing and quickly saw that I was probably wrong.
You may notice that a significant number of the normal commenters are conspicuous by their absence. And I probably should be also.
I hope that you are enjoying the end of summer. Here on the Gulf Coast, we get (practically–Chinese Tallow are the small exception) no fall color. I miss that along with the blooming of trees in the spring.
Bennett,
Thanks for responding to my comment. We are blessed here where I live in South Oklahoma, we have beautiful Fall colors, but not quite yet. I do love the Texas Gulf Coast though. Are you originally from Texas?
Concerning the discussion at hand, I wouldn’t call Ken’s proposition cynical, but serious. The truth is that I’m not so sure about the age of the earth anymore, I’m certainly not as dogmatic about it as I once was. One thing I can say for sure though is that YEC proponents are not stupid, they don’t check their brains at the door. They simply believe that creation was a supernatural act rather than a natural act of God, and as such cannot be completely apprehended by natural means.
Thank you, John.
This discussion’s getting too big for me to keep up with. But with answers like you just gave, I’m not really needed anyway. It has been a good discussion, though, hasn’t it? Who said these things turn into nasty fights after 100? I’m glad with how it’s turned out.
Ken,
Yes it has been a great discussion. Disagreement, but no disrespect or allegations of stupidity or apostasy. You did a great job on the article.
John, I grew up in Tennessee (north-west, which is meaningful if you are from TN) on a farm. I went to Union University (where I was the only chemistry major, at the time). I worked for Dow Chemical (in Freeport, Texas) for 33 years and taught chemical technology at a community college for 15 years. My first wife and I went to all 50 states and enjoyed road trips. As I mention somewhere, I have seen lots of rocks.
We live 50 miles due south of Houston. Most think that this is 12 miles out in the Gulf, but it isn’t. We’re still 6 or 8 miles “inland” and at 16.5 feet elevation (a relatively high spot).
It is way late. Enjoy the fall. I’ll start talking about weather about December and quit in May when it gets hot again.
That’s all for today—it’s way past my bed time. Be blessed!
I know I’m late to this discussion. I’ve been debating whether it was worth it to jump in. One of the assertions I’ve seen repeated throughout this discussion is that OEC arguments are not based on Scripture but on science–that if we remove the scientific evidence we don’t have a leg to stand on. I’d like to counter that. Is my belief in an old earth influenced by science? Sure. But it it also based in my belief that Genesis does not demand a young earth. Could you read it that way? Absolutely. Is it the best reading? Not in my opinion. First of all, can we agree at least on this one thing–that the creation accounts in Genesis were not primarily written to give us the age of the earth? And perhaps that the age of the earth was not a major concern for the Hebrews who first read these chapters? The question the text answers is Who created the world–not when he did it. Secondly, let’s address the genealogies since they are the major factor used in deriving a recent age for the earth. I acknowledge the YEC point that the Genesis genealogies are structured differently than other biblical genealogies because of the x lived # years and begat y formula. I don’t think that necessarily eliminates the possibility of telescoping, since we see it so commonly in other ancient genealogies and elsewhere in Scripture. However, there are still other factors that indicate to me that the genealogies have been arranged for literary effect. Look at the numbers the Genesis 5 list. All of them end in 0, 2, 5, 7, or 9. Okay, so that’s half the digits. But find a random number generator and see what kind of spread you get over 30 numbers. The probability of the first number you draw ending in a 0,2, 5, 7, or 9 is 1/2. The probability of the second being from the same set is 1/4. The third is 1/8, the fourth is 1/16, the fifth is 1/32, and–well you see where I’m going. The probability of that many numbers randomly ending in the same set of 5 digits is pretty low. Now, could God have arranged it that way just so we’d look at it and say “hmm, that’s interesting?” I suppose so, but to me it seems more likely that the author deliberately chose those numbers… Read more »
Leigh,
I am a YEC theory guy.
But I think it is okay for you to be an OEC theory person.
But when I read the Bible, Adam and the events in the Garden, and the consequences that ensue, seem to taken as real events by the Lord Jesus Himself, as well as Paul, and maybe others.
So what I see by OEC theory people is the diminishing of theological truth at the expense of belief in science. It is not a first-order thing, and I would never break fellowship over it, but I see it as a growing problem in my OEC brothers and sisters position.
When science steps beyond the boundaries, as it has, and seeks to impose upon all a metaphysical materialism POV, I can no longer trust that it is pure science that they are doing. Rather I think their POV has, and will so even more in the future, filled them with a bias that will continue to skewer their findings.
And I think that the gap will widen so that two things will happen: YEC apologists will be so far behind in their goal to explain their position scientifically, and the OEC people will have to give up more and more of their Biblical beliefs to hold on to their scientific loyalties.
Blessings to you in Jesus,
mike
Mike:
I promised to not comment any more but I’ll break my self enforced silence to ask you one question.
Namely, “What does the age of the earth have to do with whether Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. were real people?” I think there must be a ton of pre suppositions you are holding which cause you to see some relationship between the age of the earth and whether the Garden of Eden scenario is correct as reported in Genesis.
I am not joining the debate on the age of the earth because I am not qualified. But I think people who do take sides should put their cards on the table.
As an aside, of course I hold that the Genesis account regarding the Garden of Eden is an “accurate historical account”. The problem is that this is irrelevant to solving the “age of the earth” question.
Roger
Roger,
Thanks for your comment.
That I am somewhat confused about OEC is partially due to my lack of study and the various takes they have.
Do you believe that when the earth was created and inhabited that Adam and Eve and the garden happened then? And thus the history of man is much longer than YEC people take it as?
Or do you believe that the earth was created and many years, maybe centuries, maybe millennia passed before God created man? If so, was the earth inhabited by plants and animals during that time?
Or do you believe something different altogether?
Here is a web site I am currently reading that advocates both an Old Earth and fidelity to the Genesis story in the creation of man:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/who-was-adam-an-old-earth-creation-model-for-the-origin-of-humanity
Parson Mike: Thanks for engaging me on this. I am going to be brutally honest here. I don’t know what the age of the earth is and I don’t know of any coherent argument by either side of the “age of the earth” debate. As I said in a previous post, I don’t have enough skill either exegetically from the Bible or “scientifically” to come to terms with the debate. I have heard outlandish claims from both sides. I don’t know how long it was between the time of the “creation of the earth” and the time that Adam appeared in the garden. The Bible says that Adam showed up on day six. Depending upon how you take the meaning of “yom” you can come to different conclusions. Here are my understandings. I admit that I hold some of these understandings “in tension” pending more knowledge. Some of this “knowledge” I probably will never, even in principle, be able to know. 1. Age of earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 13,000,000,000 years. 2. Age of universe is 13,000,000,000 years old +/- 20% 3. Adam and Eve were real people. 4. Noah was a real person. The flood was a real event. The flood was universal. [I disagree with Hugh Ross and William Dembski who say that the “universal flood” was actually an event local to the then known world — namely the Ancient Near East] 5. Evolution is totally bogus for two reasons: (a) it is not supported by any reading of scripture, (b) it couldn’t happen by “random chance” even if age of earth/universe was 20,000,000,000 years. 6. Satan really did show up in the garden leading Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As far as I know no one else holds to the same view as I do. Of course, I could be wrong on this. I used to be an OLD EARTH guy but I gave up that position. Now I don’t have any position. However, I am definitely not your typical YOUNG EARTH guy. I don’t hold to crazy stuff such as the creation having “the appearance of age”, the speed of light varying over time since creation, or that the red shift is an artifact that God put there to fool us into thinking that the universe is old. However, as it relates to the garden… Read more »
Roger,
Again thanks for your input.
My take is that each of us can only rely on the understanding we have and continue to trust the Spirit to guide us and to grow us in truth.
As to the information on the web site noted above:
They believe that God intervened into a functioning world [that He had been created many millennia ago] and created man from the dust of the earth [per Scripture]. They do not deny evolution except in the case of man.
Hominids, from which evolutionists believe humans evolved from, are on the earth at the same time God creates Adam, and soon become extinct, about 40,000 years ago, but are not human for they are not in the image of God, only the recently created humans [Adam and Eve] are.
The website article is full of technical language as he seeks to explain the deficiencies in science that allows him [and Hugh Ross] to keep Adam the first man and seeks to be true to as much as Genesis as they can, including the Fall and the Flood.
I appreciate that for I believe that one’s ability to have a coherent grasp of the Scriptures depends on that.
But here is my take from what they are saying.
They compromise both what science declares as true and from what the Bible says is true. Life is on the earth living and dying long before the sin of Adam. The six days God created all things and rested on the seventh, is not really the way it happened. They pluck out of the creation story the creation of man and place it in a million plus old earth at about 40,000 years ago. The rest of the creation story happened millions of millions before Adam.
Two things.
One is I believe they love our God and seek to respect His Word.
Two is that the science they are using and circumventing is full of holes and speculations [by both them and the secular evolutionists] that the narrative that will come from the scientific community will marginalize their position to the point that what they believe is true is really only what they hold to by faith. [Which is where it just about now any how given the uncertainty of the science involved.]
peace,
mike
Well, Mike that’s good to know. I don’t have any problem with you being a YEC theory person, so I guess we’re equal.
As Roger pointed out, the age of the earth doesn’t have anything to do with the historicity of Adam. I hold that Adam and Eve were real, historical people, that stood “at the headwaters of humanity,” to borrow a phrase. I think the text–and Jesus and Paul–ask us to see them as historical people.
Leigh, I’m glad you decided to join us. You stated: One of the assertions I’ve seen repeated throughout this discussion is that OEC arguments are not based on Scripture but on science–that if we remove the scientific evidence we don’t have a leg to stand on. I’d like to counter that. Is my belief in an old earth influenced by science? Sure. But it it also based in my belief that Genesis does not demand a young earth. Could you read it that way? Absolutely. Is it the best reading? Not in my opinion. I don’t think you’re facing this squarely. Your “belief that Genesis does not demand a young earth” is itself founded on the scientific evidence, without which you never would have had a problem with a young earth. And the longer this movement to incorporate the scientific evidence of age into the creation account goes on, the more sophisticated and nuanced it becomes, until you actually begin to believe that it’s the text rather than the science that primarily drives the Old-Earth view. I’m not buying it. First of all, can we agree at least on this one thing–that the creation accounts in Genesis were not primarily written to give us the age of the earth? And perhaps that the age of the earth was not a major concern for the Hebrews who first read these chapters? The question the text answers is Who created the world–not when he did it. If the words of the text mean anything, then it also clearly answers the question of how long God took to create. The age of the earth question is not answered until the genealogies and general historical accounts are considered. But considering that most of the Bible contains factual, historical accounts and specific details that would be expected of a true historical account, then dancing around that is going to be insurmountable. And it is the concerns of the writer and not the readers that we should try to determine. Secondly, let’s address the genealogies since they are the major factor used in deriving a recent age for the earth. I acknowledge the YEC point that the Genesis genealogies are structured differently than other biblical genealogies because of the x lived # years and begat y formula. I don’t think that necessarily eliminates the possibility of telescoping, since we see it so commonly in other ancient… Read more »