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 ...
I see Genesis 1:1,2 as the general overview statement for
what follows in the rest of creation.
As such, there is no time attached. So I do not have any
problem with that period being any length of time before
God chose to shape a world that was “formless and void”
Genesis:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
It would seem that those who adhere strongly to a young Earth hypothesis are doing so in reaction to evolution’s claims, which require increasingly long time periods.
I do not believe the Bible requires a young Earth time frame. Nor does it require moving from creation rotational days. No one knows how long the formless and void stage
was - nor does it ultimately matter. God created the world from nothing. Only He could do this. “Nothing comes from nothing and nothing ever will.”
ampu
At Moses' time (maybe around 1600 BC), there were actually not even any organized written languages yet. Only symbol systems such as Egyptian hieroglyphics existed, and they were not really languages at all.
But if you look around, you will see that the vast majority of the upper leadership of the "Reformed" denominations do not share your belief. Presbyterian leaders mostly doubt the diety of Christ.
You lay out only the human imaginary extrapolation that generated the absurdity that Genesis does not describe the creation.
Satan’s fall was after the creation of Earth and its inhabitants. God does not speak lies; the creation was “very good.” Imagine all you wish, but God’s word does not support that nonsense. Genesis covers the very invention of time.
“However, to render faith unnecessarily to appear as absurd and thereby hinder earnest seekers . . . is to me . . . dangerous foolishness.”
Brother, be yourself very careful here. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the very heart of the Gospel. That concept is “absurd” to many. The Gospel is to the world mind.....adbsurd.
Now, of course, your warning does make some sense in that if one makes belief in YEC a “requirement” in their soteriology they have gone too far.
I’m familiar with the affiliations of Morris, Kennedy, etc. but the upper leadership of the Reformed denominations definately does not share their views.
Fools.
There were Greek civilizations far before classical Greece happened.
Not sure what that is referring to ...
However, Heaven is not to be missed for any reason under any circumstances.
Another date widely accepted for Moses and the Exodus is the 1400's BC. Egypt, Sumer, Greece are examples of cultures with types of writing which were in existence by then.
For a long time, scholars believed there was NO writing whether symbolic or otherwise in Moses' day. This has been shown to be be false.
Works for me.
Thanks.
We don’t know that they were really all that Greek ~ more like Egyptian type people living in territory eventually overrun by illegal aliens from Bulgaria.
According to whom?
Moses wrote as God instructed him to.
And I don’t think he used invisible ink.
I suspect he could read the Hebrew of today except for the new vocabulary from modern life.
I mostly agree . . . even with
“Genesis covers every invention of time.”
However, what that precisely means, I dare not even guess much at.
I’m quite in agreement with you.
. . . as far as I can tell! LOL.
The syllabaries and alphabets are derivative from the hieroglyphs and ideographs.
The original writing system, Sumerian, is actually a highly styalized hieroglyphic system.
(clipboard is your friend!) :o)
Writing was well established by Moses' time. Moses said himself that he wrote the Pentatuch.
I think we . . . are risking some error . . . to assume that our definition of Good was God’s definition at a precise point in time.
God declares that His ways are beyond finding out. Yet, we persist in taking very finite phrases and construing all manner of air castles from them.
God made very clear what He wanted to be clear about establishing and maintaining a relationship with Him.
He left a lot of things slightly hinted at. Taking such hints and writing long, thick tomes about them seems like extreme vanity, to me.
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.