Featured Young Earth vs. Old Earth

I believe the O.P. was can you recommend a book that supports the young earth theory not to start a debate about the subject or books

 

Yep, and a couple of us have tried. :thumbsup:

 

so true!
.
.

 

The title of the thread would suggest otherwise.

 

Just because someone famous believes it, does not make it so. The Bible provides detailed genealogies, from Adam all the way to Jesus. Moreover, we are told how long each of these individuals lived, to the year. So unless you deny the ages that the Bible records, OR you deny the accuracy of the genealogies, you CANNOT believe in an Old Earth. Thus, you CANNOT believe, consistently, in the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture, unless you believe in a young earth.

And after seeing Geisler's shameful defense of Ergun Caner, I really do not have a particularly high opinion of him.

 

Agreed. Also some of these other names bring a few comments to mind. First of all, I doubt that Augustine should even be included, seeing that he wrote of the "falseness" of those who assigned long periods to creation days.

Hugh Ross is rightly on the list however. He is the one who speaks of the observable creation (the night sky, nature, etc.) as "the 67th book of the Bible". As bad as that is, in practice, he interprets the other 66 books in the "light" of that more authoritative 67th book.

 

Yeah, Augustine spoke of an instant creation....not an Old Earth!

 

I'm not trying to get you to believe in an old earth.
I only want you to understand that the position is not "inherently contradictory" to biblical inerrancy.

You can add Baptist systematic theologians Millard Erikson and Wayne Grudem to the list of those that agree with Geisler that old-earth creationism is not inherently contradictory to a literal interpretation of scripture.

Literal interpretation, (defined as using the grammatico-historical method), encourages the interpretation of scripture (including the biblical genealogies) using the same literary conventions used at the time the text was introduced.

Perhaps you have a problem with the The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy [LINK]

In the section concerning Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation the Statement says:

Without a doubt old earth creationist don't interpret the genealogical record with the same strict literal hermeneutic that you might, but many follow the conventions of the grammatico-historical method to direct ehm to properly understand how the biblical genealogies were understood by those who recorded them.

Rob

 

True. But, as I remember (always iffy!), he also wrote elsewhere (was it in the Enchiridion?) on a six day creation. I would have to look it up in my notes (which are back in the States).

The point is still that people tend to make all these "old guys" into whatever sock-puppets of belief that serves them.

 

Yeah, again, I don't buy the argument from authority. You can throw all the names out that you want. If the Bible says, "900 years", and you say, "Oh, that's not what it meant" then you are DENYING the inerrancy of scripture.

Again, it is inherently contradictory. Believe what you wish, but do not try to say that you believe the Bible is without error, when you are denying what it says (regardless of the intellectual gymnastics that people try to use to accomplish it).

 

What if there was a way to interpret an old earth position from the text of Scripture and still maintain a literal view of the days in gen. 1 and a literal view of the ages of people (900+ years old)???? Isn't this what we all want... to have agreement with the scientific community and still do justice to the text? There are views out there that treat the text as superior and yet still see a possible old earth. The view I mentioned earlier is an example. Sailhamer has presented a pretty strong exegetical case that we would do well to consider (especially those of us who value biblical theology and the drama of Scripture).

 

I like Ken Ham's writings, so I consider myself a young-earther.

Another problem is that science keeps coming up with new stuff. The science doesn't stay the same.

 

No doubt that if Creation occured within the context of time, we are talking about a new earth. Also, 900 years means 900 years.

I agree with you. Aside from a pattern of two fallabe choices at times, we seem to worry more about what dead theologeans said that our ability to read Scripture and be guided by the Holy Spirit. Dead theologeans are dead theologeans. They were not divinely inspired while alive.

 

Thanks for sharing, giving it a read.

 

Not possible. If I tell you "I made this in 6 days" and then give you a detailed genealogical record, with dates, this FIXES the date.

As for Sailhammers view, the idea that "beginning" is an "undefined period of time" is absurd. Reshith is not a period of time at all. It means the first of something, or the beginning of something. In other words, the very first thing God did, was make the heavens and the earth. The text then goes on to describe that it was done in six days.

The whole idea that we are to "have agreement with the scientific community" is a dangerous and flawed one. Science, which is limited by human reason, and very limited knowledge, is at the mercy of the Word of God. Not the other way around.The fact that anyone would even allow this as a foot in the door to reinterpret the text, is scary. This is exactly what guys like Rudolph Bultmann did. Let's just apply that SAME hermeneutic throughout the Bible...then you get no miracles, no resurrection, no supernatural activity...you get Moses walking across a sandbar in the Reed sea...you get rivers turning, not to blood, but infused with sediments from a nearby mountain.... The TEXT is king, and the text absolutely precludes an Old Earth.

Besides this, there are literally thousands of credentialed scientists that do not believe in an old earth...

 

:applause::thumbs: Nor would I!!!

Haven:
He illustrates a difficult and Biblical concept to people using analogies that they can relate to....How is this a problem??? The difference between WLC and those who attack him for that, is that when pressed with hard questions..... like what the Trinity is....he is capable of explaining so it is understood.....Can you?

 

Yes. And I can do it without describing Our God by pointing to a pagan idol.

Remember the Golden calf?

 

:applause::applause::thumbs: this is correct...it does deny the supernatural..it is unbelief.

 

Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe.

Russell Humphreys