Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: The Deacon Jun 4 2005, 07:28 PM

Since 'old earth' creationism requires a rejection of Genesis 1, I am curious to know what other portions of scripture so-called old earth creationists also reject.

Please let us not have any stuff about 'day-age', progressive creation, or evolution as the method. Those ( and all other homocentric ) systems require, by definition, that God's word be unreliable. What I want to know is this: How does someone claim to be a Christian while denying that Jesus Christ, God Almighty in the flesh, did what He says He did. Jesus made many references to the creation, and there is no greater authority since: "All things were made through (by) Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made".

So then, how does one rationalize away the direct words of Jesus in favor of the supposed wisdom of men?

Posted by: Admin3 Jun 4 2005, 07:32 PM

I have been told that someone has abosolutely proved Genesis 1 wrong. But who it is, is never revealed. Maybe the person who's done this is a myth?

Posted by: Modulous Jun 5 2005, 03:45 AM

Its not rejection, its thinking in terms of allegory and story with important lessons for us to learn. Does a Christian have to believe that a Samaritan helped out a crime victim? God used metaphors, fables, allegory, parable call it what you will. All it requires is for Genesis to be viewed in the same way. Lets imagine that the Big Bang was true for example. How would God express that to Moses using ancient Hebrew? If He managed it, would Moses have believed Him? If He showed Moses, how would Moses tell the people? Would the people have believed Moses?

God needed for the people to accept the story so he could pave the way for coming of the Christ. The last thing he wanted was for the simple people of the time to reject Moses' teachings. Perhaps it was a perfectly worded story to set things up so that God could save as many souls as possible?

Posted by: 92g Jun 5 2005, 03:57 AM

As I've said numerous times, in a few posts along the way, I'm not strictly a young earth creationist, so I would like to make a few comments here.

While its true that many old earth creationists reject Gen 1, its not necessary to reject it to come to the conclusion that the age of the earth is not defined. I.e. believing that the earth is not necesarilly ~7k years old has as much to do with interpretation of scripture, if not more, than it does scientific evidence.



With this I whole heartedly agree, and then some......

There is one potential problem with the standard interpretaion of Gen 1, in that it would seem to contradict Isaiah 45:18"

ISA 45:18 ¶ For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, But formed it to be inhabited), "I am the Lord, and there is none else.

As I understand it, the term "waste place" comes from the hebrew phase "tohu wabohu", and is essentially the same phrase used in Gen. 1:2.

A straight interpetation of Gen1:2 would seem to be a contradiction to Isaiah 45:18, since in one case its saying God created the earth a waste place, and the other is saying he did not.

Its also a legtitmate translation of Gen 1:2 to say that the earth became, instead of was "void and without form". That is contained ina footnote of the NIV translation. That opens up the age of the earth since Gen 1 could be saying that the earth was:

*Created
*Became Void and without Form,
*and was re-created(restored) in 6 literal days.

While not agreeing with the traditional intpretation of Gen1 , this interpreation of scripture does no damage to the work of Christ, or his word, and reconciles Gen 1:2 with Isaiah 45:18. It does not recognize evolution in any shape fashion or form, but it does allow for the earth to be potentially older than 7k years. It could be 10k years old or 10 billion years old, its undefined.

The accusation is often made, that people who don't hold to the traditional intepretation of Gen 1 are rejecting scripture, but I think in some cases that statement is too strong, and should be used only when someone is truely trying to reconile scripture with supposed "scientific evidence" at the expense of the veracity of God's word. I have no intention of ever doing that, and I only ask that you all prayerfully consider these thoughts.

In Christ,

Terry

For a complete study of this paradigmn please order and read http://www.rbthieme.org/creation1.htm by R.B. Thieme Jr. The book is free, but donations are accepted by the motivation of the giver.

Posted by: 92g Jun 5 2005, 04:09 AM

On what basis do you make any kind of statement as to God's intents and actions?

Terry

Posted by: Modulous Jun 5 2005, 04:16 AM

None whatsoever, which was point! Since we do not know what God's intentions were, we cannot know why he might have chosen to use allegory in Genesis 1. For all we know he might have been talking literally, but we aren't really discussing that possibility in this thread (well we are, but only in contrast to the allegory possibility). If he wasn't talking literally, he must have been using allegory. Why would he do that? Who knows, but I demonstrated that there are possible reasons, even if they aren't the reasons why God would have done it in that manner.

Posted by: The Deacon Jun 5 2005, 04:36 AM

There is one teensy tiny problem with that. Genesis is presented as history, and Jesus made many references to it as such.




But the whole nation, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, did reject Moses, didn't they? And that rejection was not because of the Genesis account.

We enlightened modern men have little trouble convincing ourselves that there is nothing beyound our grasp and understanding. We are so sure of that that we neither grasp nor understand nor receive the things of the Spirit.

Posted by: Modulous Jun 5 2005, 04:42 AM

I've never seen it as presented as a literal history. Where is that done?



Its the ends that matter though. Since the right people didn't reject Moses, the Word was spread in the manner needed by God. If God had made the story more incredulous (is there a Hebrew word for quantum singularity?), would Joshua and Caleb have believed it then?



I don't know what you mean. Many physicists are of the opinion we will never understand what happened 'before' the Big Bang, believing it to be beyond our abilities.

Posted by: 92g Jun 5 2005, 04:44 AM

If you don't think you know what God's intentions are, then you should not make statements as to his intentions, e.g.





The Bible claims to make known God's intentions in several places. Just because you reject the Bible as God's word, that doesn't mean its not possible to know God's intentions.



Are we to take it litterally or allegorically when God's Word says:

1CO 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Natural man, means "soulish man", or someone who is not Born Again, as the Lord Jesus commands everyone in the human race to become, or fullfill their sentence in the Lake of Fire. IOW, a person who is spritually dead is not able to explain God's intentions or will, since they are spritually appraised.

If you ever want to be able to understand God's word so you can begin to learn God's intentions, then you need to consider, and act upon the words of the Lord Jesus:



The problem with taking things allegorically is that it quickly waters down scripture to the point that it becomes meaningless. Truth exists, and if something is known to be false, then its claims to the truth vanish pretty fast.

The Lord Jesus upheld Genesis, and he also claims to be God at the same time. While its true that he spoke on a level that people could understand at a given time, if his words are not true for all time, i.e. independant of human understanding, then they are not true at all.

If his words are not true, then he is a liar, and he has no claim to be God. Furthermore, being found a liar, and hence a sinner, he could not have been the "Lamb of God" that takes away the sins of the world.

Terry

Posted by: The Deacon Jun 5 2005, 04:54 AM

Here is another view of Isaiah 45:18.

...he created it not in vain, "he formed it to be inhabited; the earth indeed was "tohu" when it was first created, Gen_1:2, which word is used of the chaos of the earth first made, here rendered "in vain"; but then it was not created to continue so, nor did it continue so; for though it was first without form, it was soon formed in a beautiful manner, and fitted for the habitation of men and beasts, and especially the former; and more especially for the habitation of the saints, those sons of men, with whom the delights of Christ were from eternity, and whom he foresaw would dwell in the habitable parts of the earth, which was a pleasure to him; and for the sake of them was it made to be inhabited, and not by them with the wicked promiscuously only as now, but when purified, and refined by fire, to be the habitation of the righteous, with Christ at the head of them; as will be the case in the thousand years' reign:" {J. Gill}

While the presentation by 92g appears to do the text no violence I believe it does, because of the same problem I mentioned to Modulous: Jesus spoke about the creation in a matter-of-fact, way. I think it is a stretch to use Isaiah 45:18 as a wedge to open a possibility that just maybe Jesus misled us poor simple mortals in this matter.

Posted by: Modulous Jun 5 2005, 05:03 AM

Are you suggesting that God never used parables? I'm fairly sure that the divinity of Christ isn't in question here, and Christ used parables, therefore God used parables. Is that problematic?

I'm sorry for saying that God needed for people to accept His story. I thought that was self evident. Bare in mind though that this was all working from the assumption that Genesis wasn't literal. If Genesis wasn't literal, then why would God use parables?

One reason He might have used parables was because He needed for the story to be accepted (what would be the point of telling it otherwise?).




Yes, for some things we know what His intentions were. Do we know what His intentions were in all cases? Do we know what His intentions were when He created the world?



Doesn't look like anything but literal to me.



Sounds like a fair interpretation.





Is using parable not a timeless way of conveying truths? Aesop is still relevant today, and is older than Christ (but more recent than Genesis).



Since when is using parable lying? I agree that if Christ lied He would not be God.

Posted by: The Deacon Jun 5 2005, 06:48 AM

A few comments on the literary form of the parable, and on other forms of literature.

A parable is a simple story that illustrates a moral or religious point. A parable is a true story only in the sense that the point being made is true, not that the actual described events happened as stated although there are instances where the story describes real events. An example of that is the parable of the vinyard.

Within the pages of the Bible we find several distinct kinds of literature, each of which has it's own rules for interpretation. These rules are the same whether one is reading the Bible, or Moby Dick. Poetry is usually easy to identify, as is narrative, the parable, and history, and prophecy. The style of the writing identifies what category it belongs in. No one would read the Psalms and decide that they are history. In like manner a straightforward reading of Genesis reveals that it is written, and is to be taken, as history.

A problem only arises if one wishes to assume that God did not mean what He said, and that the extremely limited scientific knowledge of man is to be trusted more than the Word of God.

Posted by: Modulous Jun 5 2005, 06:59 AM

The question remains, how do we know it represents a literal factual history rather than a symbolic history?

Posted by: 92g Jun 5 2005, 08:02 AM

Genesis was written before The Lord starting speaking to the human race in parables. Parables served a specific purpose, as the the Lord Jesus spoke:



The parables spoken by the Lord Jesus were a fullfillment of phophecy;



Its a total misaplication of scripture to suggest that Genesis is a parable because the Lord Jesus spoke in parables. As scripture attests, the Lord Jesus spoke in parables for a specific reason, to confound those who are led by their senses, and not by faith in him.

Terry

Posted by: The Deacon Jun 5 2005, 09:31 AM

God is quite capable of using symbolism when it suits His purpose. The Revelation is a splendid example of a book chock full of symbolism, as is Ezekiel.

There are three main reasons to believe that Jesus taught a literal recent creation. First, the Bible makes no provision whatever for long ages of time. There is no hint of such a thing. Add to that what Jesus said about not the tiniest part of the Law passing away, then consider that Genesis is part of the Law.

The creation account is explicit about how and when. Literal days, with a stated beginning and a stated end ("first day", "Second day", etc). In Exodus 20:11, in the middle of the Ten Commandments, we find this: "... for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." That is another flat statement of what God did, and the time frame He did it in.

Jesus taught that men and women existed right from the beginning. Mark 10:6, But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Luke 11:50, ...That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; . This is a reference to Able being slain in the first generation, not billions of years later.

Acts 3:21,... Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. There have been prophets since the world began.

Jesus, who was there at the time, taught a recent creation with man being created within days of the earth itself.


edited for spelling/grammar

Posted by: Modulous Jun 5 2005, 11:42 AM

Woah, doesn't that support my position? Wasn't Moses and Caleb et al outside the kingdom of God?



Yep - it was prophesised Jesus would talk in parables. That doesn't mean that nobody (including God) would speak in parables before Jesus.



I'm not saying that. All I am saying is that we know God used parables to explain some things.

Posted by: Modulous Jun 5 2005, 12:29 PM

If the Earth was 4 billion years old, would anyone have believed it? People have difficulty believing it now, let alone thousands of years ago. Why would anyone write down something so incredulous? If somebody did write that down, I'd expect it to get burned or lost or something. It certainly would never have made it into canon.

You're going to need to help me out about the Law thing though. I'm not familiar with it. Thanks.



I'm not disputing that the language is explicit. But to draw a comparison if someone else refers to an Aesop fable by saying "For it is said, that slow and steady wins the race, as we saw when the Tortoise defeated the speedy rabbit"...it doesn't mean that the fable is true.



As is said in Genesis. Would Jesus be liable to say "God created man and woman 11 billion years after he created universe"?




So he couldn't be referring to the symbolism? In the same way as if he was referring to the Fall.




I don't see that at all, sorry.

Of course, in the end, I'm not an OEC, whereas the majority of Christians, and christian scholars are. There is only so much use you can get out of discussing it with little old me. I am open to being convinced that Bible explicitly and literally states the earth is young, since I have nothing riding on it either way. I just don't see it.

Posted by: The Deacon Jun 5 2005, 12:45 PM

Thanks all. I have found out what I wanted to know.

It seems that it doesn't matter what the text says if it doesn't agree with 'science'. That, of course is a perfect example of the Framework Hypothesis which says that science is the framework by which Scripture is to be interpreted. That is precisely backward, but it is a popular view, even with some people who ought to know better.

Posted by: Modulous Jun 5 2005, 01:17 PM

I don't think that's entirely fair. Turning water into wine, walking on water, resurection, God, feeding thousands of people with not much food, parting the sea, and more all clearly don't agree with science but are accepted by the majority (if not all) of Christians.

Posted by: Fred Williams Jun 5 2005, 03:30 PM

This is a good question. I think foremost is that Genesis was written as historical fact and not as allegory or poetry. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars agree with this. They have no stake in the debate since most of them are not practicing Jews and some are even atheists. Here is what a leading secular Hebrew scholar wrote:

“Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience, 'b') the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.” -Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford.

You have to jump through all kinds of hoops to allegorize Genesis 1-11. Another huge problem for the Old Earth believer is explaining death before sin, when both Genesis 1 and Jesus in the NT makes it clear there was NO death until SIN entered the world.

Fred

Posted by: Fred Williams Jun 5 2005, 04:03 PM

For the record, when I give my presentation on this topic I do point out that the age of the earth is not a salvation issue. So many doctrines are refuted by the simple passage of the criminal on the cross who was saved. It is a passage that comes to mind whenever I am told water baptism is required, infant baptism is a must, Jesus was tormented in hell, belief in YEC is required for salvation, etc.

However, I do emphasize that the topic is very important, because if you buy in to an Old Earth, it puts you on a slippery slope. Some may not slide far, but IMO most will slide quite a ways, if not right off the ledge into disbelief. It is estimated that 90% of “Christian” churches in our country now accept millions of years, and a majority even theistic evolution. The farther down the slope you are the more liberal the theology, to the point where many of these churches are no longer Christian. I know one major denomination that has bought in to the Jesus Seminar apostasy, where you no longer even have to accept the resurrection!

Here’s a few more slides I use in my presentation on the “Calisthenics for Compromise” a Christian must go through when accepting an Old Earth:



(image on 2nd slide courtesy of Answers in Genesis)

Posted by: 92g Jun 9 2005, 04:18 AM

Fred,

I think the slides make some interesting points. At the risk ot sliding off into unbelief.... , I would like to look at one of them a little closer...

Does vegatative life qualify as something that suffered death through Adam's sin? Adam and Eve ate in the Garden of Eden, and all the rest of the animal life ate vegative life as well.

GEN 1:29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
GEN 1:30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food ";and it was so.

I think its presumably true that when they ate something, that something died in the process.

When the Bible says that death entered the world through Adam's sin, does it mean spritual death or physical death? Physical death already existed at some level before the fall. This is further amplified by the fact that The Lord told Adam that he would die in the day that he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

GEN 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
GEN 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die. "

He did not die physically that day, but he did die spiritually.

I think the primary meanings of Rom 5:12, 1st Cor 15:21 are spritual death, not physical death. If that's the case, and seing that physical death, at least for vegetative life existed before the fall, where does that leave the application of this principle to the age of the earth?

In Christ,

Terry

Posted by: Geezer Jun 9 2005, 08:24 AM

"I think the primary meanings of Rom 5:12, 1st Cor 15:21 are spritual death, not physical death. If that's the case, and seing that physical death, at least for vegetative life existed before the fall, where does that leave the application of this principle to the age of the earth?"

Which brings up the question - do vegetables/plants ever really die?
You eat an apple and chunk the core - you have planted seeds. Same goes for most plants in one way or another.
Just a thought.
Will

Posted by: The Deacon Jun 9 2005, 10:46 AM

Naturally the Calvinist (Biblical Christian) has some input.

The death being spoken of is physical. That it was somewhat delayed (by about 930 years in the case of Adam) is not of concern because many of the promises of God were delayed after the pronouncement. Adam did not die spiritually, but his fellowship with his Maker was severely damaged. We are in the same condition today. Even after saving grace has been applied to us we have nothing like the original fellowship Adam enjoyed.

Aside: Plants are not in view with regard to death. God gave them as consumables, and while they are alive in the sense that they grow and multiply they are not alive in the sense that they have spirits for which the Second Person of the Trinity died. This ought to be obvious from Genesis 1:29. If it were otherwise, then very clear passages about death being the result of sin would be wrong.

Posted by: Fred Williams Jun 9 2005, 11:02 AM

Good questions Terry. First, plants do not have “the breath of life” or blood, two qualities that define a living being. Consider these verses (among several others):

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [nephesh].

Gen 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life [nephesh], that is, its blood.

Deut 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life [nephesh]; you may not eat the life [nephesh] with the meat.

Nowhere in the Bible are plants associated with “nephesh”, so the Bible does make a distinction between plant “life” and animal and human life [nephesh].

Actually, Adam began to physically die that day. The proper Hebrew translation of that verse is “dying you shall die”. Take a look at the Hebrew. The word for death (muwth) is used twice in a row, an interesting fact in itself! If this is not the meaning, then it begs the question as to when and where did physical death enter creation, since man (and implicitly animals, though there isn't a slam dunk verse for this) was originally created to live both physically and spiritually forever?

In Christ,
Fred

Posted by: Fred Williams Jun 9 2005, 11:18 AM

I haven't heard this before, are you sure this is taught by the WC, or Calvinism? Some of the initial "hits" I found on this on the internet suggest Calvinists accept that Adam died both spiritually and physically.

Posted by: chance Jun 13 2005, 03:02 PM

anyone A quick aside, it that the source of the Jewish practice of kosher slaughter? I was wondering why the Jewish and Islamic communities have take a more practical interpretation to this passage.

Posted by: Geezer Jun 14 2005, 07:48 AM

From : http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_kosherslaughtering.htm


From: http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

There is more detail in the 2nd link if interested.

Posted by: The Deacon Jun 14 2005, 04:07 PM

It is a logical necessity. Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD." Those who are spiritually dead have no place for the Lord, yet Adam both knew and acknowledged where his son came from.

{added for clarity)This passage quotes Eve, but she was in the same shape as Adam, so by extension it fits him as well.