Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by mandym, Dec 29, 2011.
Or if Adam and Eve lived for 1000's of years in the Garden of Eden before the Fall.
Or if the length of a day was longer than 24 hours prior to Day Four (creation of the sun.)
Or if the Garden was in a state of grace and time passing did not exist until after the fall.
Or if Adam didn't start aging until he was kicked out of the Garden. Alternatively, if Adam only started counting the years until he died once he was removed from the Garden.
And yet the earth and all creation appear, to reasonable people, to be billions of years old.
The suggestion that it is doesn't devalue the Bible nor does it negate the biblical accounts of creation. The YEC position forces a limited hermeneutic onto a non-scientific account of creation in the early part of Genesis. IMHO, is a more limited heremeneutical position than other positions which are more generous and robust.
Which is not a source of truth.
This "scientific account of creation" has less validity than the Biblical account. Our perspective and that which we see as an "appearance" must be guided by scripture first. Which is the point of the op. If you understand creation and science through the lens of scripture rather than the other way around then the OE position looses credibility.
If Genesis 1 was all we had, then yes, I probably would assume that this was referring to 24-hours days, except for the whole moon, stars and sun being created on the fourth day, since the shining of the sun upon the rotating earth is the way we count days. I would have to assume that the length of a day was an arbitrary decision God made and then aligned everything to fit that decision.
However, we have Genesis 2 which has a different order of creation (yes, I know people can interpret the creation of the animals to have occurred before Eve) and we have eyes and a brain to see an enormous amount of evidence indicating a very old earth.
I'm fine with a young earth or old earth, but my understanding of the scriptures, what I have observed with my eyes, and my understanding of the issues of time, physics, natural science, etc. makes me lean strongly toward an old earth.
So we cannot know truth using reason and careful observation of the created order?
That's a troubling thought.
That viewpoint also completely undermines biblical knowledge since we have to interpret the scriptures according to reason and our understanding of the world.
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
The bigger issue is that the Bible does not give us dates. Any dating must be arrived at by inference and it is very possible that attempts to date the time of creation by the selected references found in the Pentatuch are off by a bit.
I think that there is yet just cause for a YEC view, but not one that rigidly stands on the scholarship of Archbishop Usher.
Don't quote scripture. It'll ruin his argument! :laugh:
Just who are these reasonable people?
I thought the Holy Spirit was our help in interpreting Scripture.
Lots and lots of people. Just look around, they are out there. It isn't unreasonable to hold the earth and creation appear to be extremely old.
I believe the Holy Spirit has guided and informed my read of Scripture. How is that wrong?
Where do you find this in the bible??? man by wisdom did not know God. Our sin darkened mind as opposed to God's revelation??
Lots and lots of people tell me nothing. But I can tell you something: Many scientists have tunnel vision when it comes to their viewpoint. And that is a fact!
Wonderful. Would that all people would be as obedient to the indwelling Spirit.
Or if the speed of light is not an absolute constant, but in fact is subject to entropy.
As a young believer I looked at the word "was" (Gen 1:2) and contended that "hayah" would have better been translated "became."
It fit with the thinking that void and darkness were inconsistent with the nature and character of God. A lot of science and biblical professors worked on what is known as "the gap" theory.
Not long after the PC became a real tool of research, I was perusing through the rabbinic scholarship on the Genesis, and found that in nearly every case they considered the word properly translated and fitting the poetic structure as "was." However, when I visited with a few rabbinical friends, they also indicated that the word could certainly mean a certain change of relationship and order could be valid as the word "was" could represent that meaning. Example: Jim was mangled in an accident, would indicate that something happened that changed Jim's form.
Also, it is important to note that the rabbinical scholars by in large held a consistent 24 hour time period even before the fourth day, because the spinning of the earth is a completely separate issue than that of the rest of the celestial matter. That is, despite no sun, the earth still rotated in a 24 hour cycle. The sun was placed to mark dark from light.
I no longer hold that was was became. - confused
However, I do ponder over the "tohuw, bohuw" (complete wasteland in ruin) and wonder would God create something against his nature? and if not, what happened?
The other pondering, and that which is controversial, is the reading that shows that the creating flowed from something that pre-existed and was called to re-emerge. It continues until the making of man which is placed as something not having existed before the making.
It really doesn't matter.
It is important to recognize that part of the character and nature of God is to create. That did not start with the earth and does not end when the heaven and earth pass away.
Myopic thinking has been a part of humanity, and I doubt that it won't be solved on this thread. Not that any posters are myopic.
If some hold to an "old earth" or some contend for the "young" or "new earth" view, it shouldn't be a barn burner.
It is a fun question to consider, however, unfortunately, in some assemblies they actually place their view as a point of doctrinal contention. I personally think they are misapplying and myopic in doing so, but would never desire to engage in an argument with the folks. I am not convinced of any view, and as old as I am really don't much care.
What I personally hold is that the earth as it exists is actually a bit older than 6000 years. My wife tells me that I'm older than dirt. She is always right. That is an established fact. I wouldn't argue with her - I never have won.
Back in the day, I would tell the children that I had a dinosaur for a pet - they would stare in wonder.
I actually did - it was an alligator.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep.
Darkness? Why darkness in this creation of God? And shall be cast unto outer darkness. Why was there nothing but darkness upon this creation?
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
What is this light? It is not the sum. Where did this light come from? Where was it when there wasn't anything but darkness upon the face of the deep?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none good but one, God:
How long had the presence of God been gone from the earth since it's creation when the sons of God shouted with joy over it's creation?
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Except light was made early on.
No its not that id just silly
Our observation cannot be the authority. It must be run through the filter of scripture rather than run through the filter of man made science.