Calling all Old Earthers..Calling all Young Earthers

[shepherdsword]

I believe the earth is billions of years old. I believe the Bible is God's revealed word and that the Genesis account is literal. I reconcile the two by Scofield's
classic "gap" theory.
Maybe both groups can point out the error in my assumptions.


<but let's play nice,you can only throw rocks at me,not each other>

[shepherdsword]

I think I should mention that I once had a debate with Ken Hamm from AIG at a baptist church in Hollywood,Fl back in 93 or 94.
I actually made him admit that God created the universe with the appearance of age when it comes to our ability to observe distant galaxies. He also publicly stated that the proton to proton method that we observe in stellar evolution could not be proven. His guest speaker was Gary Parker and I had lunch with him at McDonald's during the break. He admitted to me that the gap theory wasn't such a bad position to take.

[Romber]

You know, theologically I am much more comfortable with Old Earth view, as long as you take the first 11 chapters literally (belief in Creation). I don't necessarily agree that the Earth is millions/billions of years old, but it could be worked into scripture if one really tried.

However and old earth TE is what I have real problems with. Their belief is a poor reconciliation between the opposing sides and, in my opinion, a way to have a little bit of both. It totally undermines what scripture has to say about the creation and really makes the bible seem nothing more than a book.

[shepherdsword]

You know, theologically I am much more comfortable with Old Earth view, as long as you take the first 11 chapters literally (belief in Creation). I don't necessarily agree that the Earth is millions/billions of years old, but it could be worked into scripture if one really tried.

However and old earth TE is what I have real problems with. Their belief is a poor reconciliation between the opposing sides and, in my opinion, a way to have a little bit of both. It totally undermines what scripture has to say about the creation and really makes the bible seem nothing more than a book.

The problem that I see with their position is that,as I believe you have called it, it's a slippery slope once you begin to assert that God's word is full of contradictions. However, I don't just believe the first 11 chapters...I believe it ALL!

[markedward]

I believe the earth is billions of years old. I believe the Bible is God's revealed word and that the Genesis account is literal. I reconcile the two by Scofield's
classic "gap" theory.
Maybe both groups can point out the error in my assumptions.

How about this:

There's zero Biblical evidence for a "gap". (And no, "replenish" is not evidence: the word "replenish" means "to fill fully", just as "research" means "to search fully".)

The "ruin-reconstruction" gap theory is absolutely without Biblical evidence. It's a completely manmade idea that didn't exist until a little around two-hundred years ago. If there was a "ruin-reconstruction" era of creation, it is simply not hinted at in the Bible.

[crawfish]

The problem that I see with their position is that,as I believe you have called it, it's a slippery slope once you begin to assert that God's word is full of contradictions. However, I don't just believe the first 11 chapters...I believe it ALL!

First: I would argue that, by your definition, almost every Christian is on a slippery slope, because most accept things that any conservative Christian would have denied a hundred years ago. Even the staunchest creationists accept more elements of evolutionary theory than they did 50, 20 or even 10 years ago. This is why the argument is a fallacy: just because you accept something novel does not mean you will accept just anything. The worst part of that argument is that it can blind you or make you resistant to truth that you do not yet understand.

Second, as TE, I also believe the entire bible. I believe it is God's word, inerrant in that it is exactly what God intended to say. What I also believe is that we misapply and take it out of context when we try to define science by its content.

When romber refers to chapter 1-11, he likely refers to me, who believes that those chapters are primarily allegorical while the rest of Genesis is primarily historical. He feels this is an arbitrary distinction I have made because the former chapters do not support my theology. However, I make the distinction based on the different literary methods used before and after that point, in addition to the more personal, detailed stories that begin in chapter 12. I think most of us believe you read the Gospels differently than Paul's letters; you read wisdom literature differently than books of law; you read the Prophets differently than you read the histories. I believe Genesis is much the same, but contains at least two unique styles that lend themselves to different readings. I have plenty of resources that support this point of view.

I also feel that a "TE" reading of Genesis 1 is actually more literal than a "YEC" literal reading. The latter tends to need to find science and to fill in details to make its account consistent; the TE reading needs neither. I also find it impossible to apply the strict 21st-century literal reading to many other parts of scripture (which YEC's do not claim to do), and thus YEC theology is inconsistent. Only a TE reading, which is open to symbolism and allegory and evaluation of literary style to interpretation, offers a consistent way to read scripture.

Third, I believe Gap theory is actually the weakest of the creation theories. I've explained why I favor TE above; YEC is the second-most consistent because of its purely literal nature. OEC is a slight deviation pretending that the order is absolute while the timeframe is not, while gap theory requires a very questionable reading of Genesis 1 and 2 to work.

[Itinerant Lurker]

First: I would argue that, by your definition, almost every Christian is on a slippery slope, because most accept things that any conservative Christian would have denied a hundred years ago. Even the staunchest creationists accept more elements of evolutionary theory than they did 50, 20 or even 10 years ago.

This reminds me very much of some of the points made in Bernard Ramm's The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954).

Sad has been the history of the evil that good Christian men have done in regard to science. Bettex laments that far too often the Christian attitude toward science is an attitude unworthy of itself and "where not positively hostile, treats it with petty distrust, and an admixture of scorn, or at least with some aversion and distaste" (6). Dawson complains of "slipshod Christianity" which rests smugly in dogmatic theology, and has the most contemptible estimation of geology (7). John Pye Smith complained

[Evangelical castigators of science] are unwittingly serving the designs of [Christianity's] enemies [and are] secret traitors to the cause of Christianity (8)

The judgment of White is proved a thousand times that the cheap weapons of religious opposition to science are like "Chinese gongs and dragon lanterns against rifled cannon" (9).

Does not the most hyperorthodox among us realize that most of the views he now holds about the Bible, medicine, science, and progress which he thinks are so orthodox, safe, sane, and Biblical, would, a few centuries ago, have cost him his life?

If evangelicalism continues to have a strong, outspoken group within it with such a negative approach to science, the prospects of instating the scientific respectability of Scripture are not good. If this pedantic hyperorthodoxy continues to be the representative voice in evangelical apologetics, the great cleavage between science and evangelicalism which occurred in the nineteenth century will not only be perpetuated through the twentieth, but it will be widened.

[crawfish]

This reminds me very much of some of the points made in Bernard Ramm's The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954).

Sad has been the history of the evil that good Christian men have done in regard to science. Bettex laments that far too often the Christian attitude toward science is an attitude unworthy of itself and "where not positively hostile, treats it with petty distrust, and an admixture of scorn, or at least with some aversion and distaste" (6). Dawson complains of "slipshod Christianity" which rests smugly in dogmatic theology, and has the most contemptible estimation of geology (7). John Pye Smith complained

[Evangelical castigators of science] are unwittingly serving the designs of [Christianity's] enemies [and are] secret traitors to the cause of Christianity (8)

The judgment of White is proved a thousand times that the cheap weapons of religious opposition to science are like "Chinese gongs and dragon lanterns against rifled cannon" (9).

Does not the most hyperorthodox among us realize that most of the views he now holds about the Bible, medicine, science, and progress which he thinks are so orthodox, safe, sane, and Biblical, would, a few centuries ago, have cost him his life?

If evangelicalism continues to have a strong, outspoken group within it with such a negative approach to science, the prospects of instating the scientific respectability of Scripture are not good. If this pedantic hyperorthodoxy continues to be the representative voice in evangelical apologetics, the great cleavage between science and evangelicalism which occurred in the nineteenth century will not only be perpetuated through the twentieth, but it will be widened.

Thank you for the quote! I am bookmarking that for future reference.

[DoctorZOomZoOm]

I believe the earth is billions of years old. I believe the Bible is God's revealed word and that the Genesis account is literal. I reconcile the two by Scofield's
classic "gap" theory.
Maybe both groups can point out the error in my assumptions.


<but let's play nice,you can only throw rocks at me,not each other>

I don't think the Genesis account has to be taken literally, and it's not a new idea. St. Augustine for one didn't think it had to be, niether did Sir Issac Newton.

I really wish Christians could move on past "Creationism", because that's always the #1 argument atheists make against Christians. Take that away from them, point out 100 million people died under atheism (i.e., communism) and then suddenly they're the ones on the defensive.

http://usminc.org/creation.html (or better yet, check out the whole site and click on "Evolution Is OK" in the control panel.)

[Rocking horse]

I believe the earth is billions of years old. I believe the Bible is God's revealed word and that the Genesis account is literal. I reconcile the two by Scofield's
classic "gap" theory.
Maybe both groups can point out the error in my assumptions.





<but let's play nice,you can only throw rocks at me,not each other>

Ahhhhh, when I saw the heading of your post and it said....calling all old...
I thought you were calling me...

[Psalms Fan]

I think that a problem that many christians run into is that they think that the validity of their faith starts in whether Genesis 1-2 happened the way they think it says it happened, when in fact the validity of our faith starts at the end of the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection. Either that happened or it didn't. The answer to that gives or takes away validity to Genesis 1-2, not vice versa. So whatever point Genesis is making only has it's meaning in the cross and empty tomb.

I think that Genesis 1-2 is only a big deal between christians and non-christians because Christians make it into much bigger of a deal than it ought to be.

[Athanasius]

I believe the earth is billions of years old. I believe the Bible is God's revealed word and that the Genesis account is literal. I reconcile the two by Scofield's
classic "gap" theory.
Maybe both groups can point out the error in my assumptions.

<but let's play nice,you can only throw rocks at me,not each other>

I hate these kinds of discussions. You know the kind I mean? Where someone comes along, says, "I believe 'X'" and proceeds to challenge everyone to "prove me wrong!". What really gets me is that the entire time the person demanding all of this is assuming that 1) they are right and 2) they know enough about their position that they can't be proven wrong. In light of 2 I often wonder what's the point.

Moving on...

I can live with a multi-billion year old earth. I can even live with a literal reading of the Genesis account. What I can't live with, however, is bad theology and eisegetics (as opposed to a proper hermeneutic and exegetic). The error in your assumptions? That there's actually a gap.

I think I should mention that I once had a debate with Ken Hamm from AIG at a baptist church in Hollywood,Fl back in 93 or 94.
I actually made him admit that God created the universe with the appearance of age when it comes to our ability to observe distant galaxies. He also publicly stated that the proton to proton method that we observe in stellar evolution could not be proven. His guest speaker was Gary Parker and I had lunch with him at McDonald's during the break. He admitted to me that the gap theory wasn't such a bad position to take.

See, this is the sort of thing that makes me think you're assuming you're right and can't be proven wrong (to the point of dogmatism).

[shepherdsword]

How about this:

There's zero Biblical evidence for a "gap". (And no, "replenish" is not evidence: the word "replenish" means "to fill fully", just as "research" means "to search fully".)

The "ruin-reconstruction" gap theory is absolutely without Biblical evidence. It's a completely manmade idea that didn't exist until a little around two-hundred years ago. If there was a "ruin-reconstruction" era of creation, it is simply not hinted at in the Bible.

There is PLENTY of evidence. However, Rather than regurgitate the huge mass of it all at once I will post it one bit at a time. This will ensure that each issue is fully dealt with. Let's start from the beginning:

Gen 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

( I apologize for the transliteration my hebrew and greek fonts don't seem to work here)

In the beginning God created (baraaa)
and yet the earth was(haw-yaw or BECAME!) without form(tohuw) and void(waabohuw)?

The above passage indicates thatGod created and THEN became(haw-yaw) an undistinguishable ruin or void(bohu) and formless(tohu :to lie waste or desolation)
This gives strong evidence for a "gap" between creation and the creation BECOMING a ruin and being layed waste.

ideas?

[shepherdsword]

First: I would argue that, by your definition, almost every Christian is on a slippery slope, because most accept things that any conservative Christian would have denied a hundred years ago. Even the staunchest creationists accept more elements of evolutionary theory than they did 50, 20 or even 10 years ago. This is why the argument is a fallacy: just because you accept something novel does not mean you will accept just anything. The worst part of that argument is that it can blind you or make you resistant to truth that you do not yet understand.

I think you misunderstand the slope I was referring too.I wasn't speaking about the acceptance of proven and observable fact as the slope. I was referring to the tendency by many in the TE group to throw away the literal truth of God's word for a soupy symbolic interpretation that can be poured into whatever mold is deemed necessary

Second, as TE, I also believe the entire bible. I believe it is God's word, inerrant in that it is exactly what God intended to say. What I also believe is that we misapply and take it out of context when we try to define science by its content.

When romber refers to chapter 1-11, he likely refers to me, who believes that those chapters are primarily allegorical while the rest of Genesis is primarily historical. He feels this is an arbitrary distinction I have made because the former chapters do not support my theology. However, I make the distinction based on the different literary methods used before and after that point, in addition to the more personal, detailed stories that begin in chapter 12. I think most of us believe you read the Gospels differently than Paul's letters; you read wisdom literature differently than books of law; you read the Prophets differently than you read the histories. I believe Genesis is much the same, but contains at least two unique styles that lend themselves to different readings. I have plenty of resources that support this point of view.

I also feel that a "TE" reading of Genesis 1 is actually more literal than a "YEC" literal reading. The latter tends to need to find science and to fill in details to make its account consistent; the TE reading needs neither. I also find it impossible to apply the strict 21st-century literal reading to many other parts of scripture (which YEC's do not claim to do), and thus YEC theology is inconsistent. Only a TE reading, which is open to symbolism and allegory and evaluation of literary style to interpretation, offers a consistent way to read scripture.

And yet this method opens a WHOLE can of worms when you apply it to foundational Christian doctrine. However I am not saying this is what is going on when it is isolated to the creation story. The gnostic sect had a symbolic interpretation for what they considered the "anointing" or "Christ" and they ended up falling into an antichrist deception.

Third, I believe Gap theory is actually the weakest of the creation theories. I've explained why I favor TE above; YEC is the second-most consistent because of its purely literal nature. OEC is a slight deviation pretending that the order is absolute while the timeframe is not, while gap theory requires a very questionable reading of Genesis 1 and 2 to work.

I beg to differ and I think I can show why. In fact,the gap theory is the only one that allows us to reconcile the truth in God's word with the pretty much indisputable fact that the earth is a lot older than the 10,000 years Yankee candle attempts(with futile desperation) to prove it is. However, I am willing to learn. I just see IL pretty much destroying all of his arguments and then he gets mad and calls him names.
That kind of discussion will not change me

[BrckBrln]

In fact,the gap theory is the only one that allows us to reconcile the truth in God's word with the pretty much indisputable fact that the earth is a lot older than the 10,000 years

Hi, have you ever heard of the Framework Interpretation? I personally believe it's the only view that has proper exegesis that fits in with most of modern science.