Posted on 05/10/2009 8:21:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In The Bible, Rocks and Time (IVP Academic), geologists and Reformed Christians Davis Young and Ralph Stearley try to convince young-earth creationists (YECs) to abandon their position. First, they argue that the Creation account in Genesis 1 need not be understood as a historical narrative documenting the creation of the universe and its inhabitants in six normal (rotational) days. Second, they argue that the data from geology point unwaveringly to a planet of exceedingly ancient age.
I particularly appreciated Young and Stearley's historical overview of church beliefs on Genesis and Creation. Their careful documentation puts to rest the claims of other old-earth proponents that the church fathers held views compatible with an ancient earth. They likewise present the origins of modern geology well, particularly within the broader historical backdrop of Christian influences on scientific thought.
But BR&T is essentially a negative critique. Theologically, the authors seek to show that Genesis 1 need not be understood as describing six rotational days. But if so, which competing view should we adopt? They clearly dislike the "ruin-reconstruction theory" or "gap theory" (there was a large gap of time between the first and second verses of Genesis), and display reservations about the day-age view (the six days were much longer periods). The authors favor some kind of allegorical view (e.g., the "framework hypothesis"), but are steadfast that they will not make a positive case for any of these.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
You guys always have one, single argument that everything else boils down to:
Our epistemology is divine, and yours isn't, so screw you, we're going home.</Cartman>
You argue on about that level.
Last Thursdayims!
Who says the entire universe wasn’t created with the appearance of age last Thursday?
I like when people go with the “appearance of age” defense in that it admits a fundamental truth...
a) Models that assume an ancient Earth and Universe are useful in explaining and predicting data
b) Models that assume a young Earth and Universe are of absolutely no practical use to anybody.
Thanks for your kind words.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
I really very rarely see any connection in the lives of most folks I know . . . with anything at all about the debate between old vs new earth perspectives.
Just does not enter their radar—and certainly has no influence on their relationship or lack of relationship with God.
I realize that all manner of nuanced inferred and extrapolated nuances can conjure, fantasize, . . .
infer and extrapolate . . .
all manner of connections and pseudo-connections between such and Salvation through Christ.
I don’t see such as being overly . . . solid and certainly not massively decisive or influential.
I kind of think it odd that anyone would.
Majoring in majors and minoring in minors is wisdom in our walk of Faith as well as in other areas of life, imho.
And IF “EVERYTHING” IS “IMPORTANT,”
THEN
functionally, NOTHING IS.
I’m certainly not reducing God’s Holy Word to a fallible level.
I just have observed that we don’t know near as much about a lot of things as we vainly and arrogantly think we know.
bkmk
Fichori,
I think the main thing is that we do not know everything. But assuming that it was 6 days, and I believe it was, understanding verses 1 and 2 to happen before the 6 days is within the language used.
Here is some commentary from Bible scholars that I think you will find interesting.
1:1-2. These verses have traditionally been understood as referring to the actual beginning of matter, a Creation out of nothing and therefore part of day one.
But the vocabulary and grammar of this section require a closer look. The motifs and the structure of the Creation account are introduced in the first two verses. That the universe is God’s creative work is perfectly expressed by the statement God created the heavens and the earth. The word (“created”) may express creation out of nothing, but it certainly cannot be limited to that (cf. 2:7).
Rather, it stresses that what was formed was new and perfect. The word is used throughout the Bible only with God as its subject.
But 1:2 describes a chaos: there was waste and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. The clauses in verse 2 are apparently circumstantial to verse 3, telling the world’s condition when God began to renovate it. It was a chaos of wasteness, emptiness, and darkness. Such conditions would not result from God’s creative work ; rather, in the Bible they are symptomatic of sin and are coordinate with judgment.
Moreover, God’s Creation by decree begins in verse 3, and the elements found in verse 2 are corrected in Creation, beginning with light to dispel the darkness. The expression formless and empty seems also to provide an outline for chapter 1, which describes God’s bringing shape and then fullness to the formless and empty earth.
Some have seen a middle stage of Creation here, that is, an unfinished work of Creation (v. 2) that was later developed (vv. 3-25) into the present form. But this cannot be sustained by the syntax or the vocabulary.
Others have seen a “gap” between the first two verses, allowing for the fall of Satan and entrance of sin into the world that caused the chaos. It is more likely that verse 1 refers to a relative beginning rather than the absolute beginning (Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981, 1:5). The chapter would then be accounting for the Creation of the universe as man knows it, not the beginning of everything, and verses 1-2 would provide the introduction to it. The fall of Satan and entrance of sin into God’s original Creation would precede this.
~~~~~~
It is for reasons like that I think many young earth creationists proclaim more than we actually know. It is enough for me to know HE created the world - and that in 6 days - my faith doesn’t rest on any more than that.
Best to you,
ampu
Wisdom from J. Vernon McGhee
“It still makes more sense to me to read: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Who created the universe? God did. He created it out of nothing. When? I don’t know, and nobody else knows. Some men say one billion years ago, some say two billion, and now some say five billion. I personally suspect that they all are pikers. I think it was created long before that.
My friend, we need to keep in mind that God has eternity behind Him. What do you think He has been doing during all the billions of years of the past? Waiting for you and me to come on the scene? No, He has been busy. He has had this creation a long time to work with. You see, He really has not told us very much, has He? It is presumptuous of little man down here on earth to claim to know more than he really knows.
You cannot put one little star in motion;
You cannot shape one single forest leaf,
Nor fling a mountain up, nor sink an ocean,
Presumptuous pigmy, large with unbelief!
You cannot bring one dawn of regal splendor,
Nor bid the day to shadowy twilight fall,
Nor send the pale moon forth with radiance tender;
And dare you doubt the One who has done it all?
- Sherman A. Nagel, Sr.
“It behooves us to just accept that majestic statement which opens the Word of God: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” And with the psalmist let us consider His heavens, the work of His fingers, the moon and the stars, which He hast ordained (Ps. 8:3) and realize that “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1).
“But 1:2 describes a chaos: there was waste and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. The clauses in verse 2 are apparently circumstantial to verse 3, telling the world’s condition when God began to renovate it. It was a chaos of wasteness, emptiness, and darkness. Such conditions would not result from God’s creative work ; rather, in the Bible they are symptomatic of sin and are coordinate with judgment.” [excerpt]Uh, thats a bit out there.
“It is for reasons like that I think many young earth creationists proclaim more than we actually know. It is enough for me to know HE created the world - and that in 6 days - my faith doesn’t rest on any more than that.” [excerpt]I agree, people do have a tendency to run with the bit when it comes to Genesis 1:1,2
No, we have the Lord's loud assertion that the creation was "very good" on the sixth day. How much more to you think you need? do you think that he didn't know what Lucifer was up to?
He knew what Lucifer was going to do in the near future, but obviously it had not been done yet!
They’re not comfortable with that; its so rigid you know!
“Regarding your J. Vernon McGhee quote, how is it possible for God who is outside of time, to be busy?
I take his use of “busy” to mean, “doing things”...
OF course GOD does NOT speak lies!!!!! NO the word does NOT cover the very invention of time, because it took until Peter to tell us how long a day is with the LORD. Now you can believe whatever you choose but this earth is eons old and the devil rebelling and that third that followed him is the very reason that every one that would has opportunity to 'see' the kingdom of God, per Christ's own words to be born from above. I have been down the 6,000 year young earth and the evidence does NOT fit the claim, and neither does the WORD, which by the way in John says the WORD is GOD!!!
I'm not sure I agree with this. "Without form, and void" are certainly within the parameters of the definitions for the Hebrew words which exist in the text of Genesis, and though I agree that one could interpret them as describing a type of chaos, and thus transition for the earth itself, there is nothing to suggest, in the remaining lines of Genesis 1:2, that this chaotic condition, or desolation, extends to the rest of the universe, which it would need to for the theory to make sense. Darkness does not suggest chaos in and of itself, and again, there is nothing in the text to suggest that this darkness was transitional, rather than primary.
This is an important point because, if Genesis 1:1-2 is indeed an act of creation, rather than a prelude, then one must account for this transition not only of the earth, but of the heavens also, otherwise, you have God creating the universe twice for no apparent reason...once in Genesis 1:1, and again in the chronology of creation to follow.
It could be that Genesis 1:2, as a prelude, simply describes the earth as without form/shape or substance, i.e., it simply didn't exist in physical terms.
Another thing to consider is that if this desolation did indeed occur, then it is unlikely that we would have any evidence at all of anything that existed prior to this, so the argument that the fossil record is an indication of this earlier age is extremely tenuous.
Mind you, this is just my opinion on the matter as stands right now.....
- Mark Twain.
I like this story:
There’s a story told about former Yankees catcher Yogi Berra that illustrates. It seems it was the bottom of the ninth, with two out and the score tied up. The batter from the opposing team comes up to bat, and when he does, he makes the sign of the cross in the dust of home plate, and, presumably, offers a prayer, asking to hit one out of the park.
Berra, a practicing Catholic himself, bends over and brushes off the plate. “Listen,” he says, “Why don’t we just let God watch the game?”
No, you seem to be deeply confused about what God’s word is.
It is all there is for us to know. Your insistance in adding to God’s word, and being dissatisfied with its clear message indicates a hatred for it.
The passages of scripture that you reference are unrelated to the mumbo-jumbo that you apply to them. You are adding to the word, and destroying its meaning in the process.
You too are adding to God's word! That passage is being presented out of context; it was related to the end time; "The Day of The Lord." He was explaining that the millenium to come was that "day." It has no relationship whatsoever to the days of creation. That is blasphemy because it calls the plain statements of the word a lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.