TE Take on YEC

[busterdog]

Most things that seem crazy to one makes perfect sense from a different point of view or a different worldview. Even the 'craziest' conspiracy theory nut makes perfect sense out of their own ideas. Though I suppose that was what you were saying too.

The most extreme (as I don't think YEC is particularly crazy either) literalist position is based solely on the assertion that God would have written Genesis 1 and 2 factually therefore they must be factual. If I thought that were true, I would be YEC myself! I do try very hard to avoid assumptions or at the least to test them continuously which is why YEC didn't stick long in my beliefs -- after I was exposed to AIG by high-school peers, I found a whole lot of sense in the YEC position. It was only later when I started testing the assumptions and seeking out sources for the evidence behind AiG's claims that I found the position untenable.

If somebody assumes that Genesis 1 must be factual to be truthful, and also assumes that any other source of truth is secondary to the Bible, then there is almost by definition, no evidence that could change their mind. That is certainly logically consistant -- but the argument that there is some fundemental separation between experiments we can repeat to verify predictions and theories that only predict what evidence we should find of a hypothetical past event is fundimentally flawed and logically inconsistant. I find many YEC arguments like this to be logically flawed, but since a YEC generally assumes that truth in the Bible trumps any other source of truth (as I think I do as well*) AND assumes that Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be true if not factual, any further discussion of why they hold their position is unnecessary as any secondary point that we might disprove is really irrelevant to those two main assumptions and don't touch the basis of the YEC belief.

*Note that the qualification "I think" is solely because I don't have the brainpower at the moment to think through all the ramifications of this claim. I find immense truth in the teaching of Christ and in the compilation of the Bible, but to claim it trumps all other sources of truth really depends on a solid definition of source and of truth. For example, if the Holy Spirit is a source of truth, does it trump the Bible? Is the Bible actually a source of truth to begin with as it must be interpreted (perhaps with the help of the Holy Spirit) etc... It's way too late for me, and I don't have the energy, I just didn't want to leave it looking like my faith in the teaching of Christ was tenuous or simply remove the comment and not mention that half of what I see as basic YEC assumptions is justified.

And while I'm at it, that last sentence sucks because when you talk about "half" it's usually not singular so saying "half is justified" really bugs me. Oh well -- I'm off to bed... again... now if only God will grant me sleep toonight...

I think this pretty much "gets", or understands us.

It is not dismissive of the YEC's way of reasoning.

 

[vossler]

I think this pretty much "gets", or understands us.

Yeah, it's nice when someone from the opposing side understands you.

 

[keyarch]

I think this pretty much "gets", or understands us.

It is not dismissive of the YEC's way of reasoning.

If I ever got to the point where I didn't believe Genesis 1 and 2 were true and that life wasn't created fully formed in it's "kinds" and/or there wasn't a literal global flood some 4,400 years ago, I wouldn't just fall back to a TE position and rationalize the Bible away taking bits and pieces as I choose to fit my own needs. I would have to question the truth of the resurrection and probably loose my faith all together.

It's a dangerous slippery slope. I mean really, how can one dismiss those beginning events that are told in a truthful factual way, and yet still believe that Jesus brought someone back alive who had been dead several days and that He was dead Himself and became alive again? Is it that they believe the Bible unless "science" supposedly "proves" different? There is no "proof" that anyone can come back alive after that long. Isn't THAT unscientific?

 

[busterdog]

If I ever got to the point where I didn't believe Genesis 1 and 2 were true and that life wasn't created fully formed in it's "kinds" and/or there wasn't a literal global flood some 4,400 years ago, I wouldn't just fall back to a TE position and rationalize the Bible away taking bits and pieces as I choose to fit my own needs. I would have to question the truth of the resurrection and probably loose my faith all together.

It's a dangerous slippery slope. I mean really, how can one dismiss those beginning events that are told in a truthful factual way, and yet still believe that Jesus brought someone back alive who had been dead several days and that He was dead Himself and became alive again? Is it that they believe the Bible unless "science" supposedly "proves" different? There is no "proof" that anyone can come back alive after that long. Isn't THAT unscientific?

The contradiction you mention is one that I just can never get my head around. That may be about the best argument for YEC, other than the nature of Gen. 1 and Exod. 20.

One might not be convinced of YEC, but if you believe in the resurrection, why not be open to the idea, even if you are not convinced?

That being said, what is good to see is clarity on our differences. One response is to say that it's just whatever your point of view is and any one view is as good as any other. The more useful response is to understand the nature of the division between the two camps. It helps one to avoid being repetitive, to temper one's words, and to define your prayers.

And, its nice to know that your views have been heard.

 

[vossler]

If I ever got to the point where I didn't believe Genesis 1 and 2 were true and that life wasn't created fully formed in it's "kinds" and/or there wasn't a literal global flood some 4,400 years ago, I wouldn't just fall back to a TE position and rationalize the Bible away taking bits and pieces as I choose to fit my own needs. I would have to question the truth of the resurrection and probably loose my faith all together.

Amen

It's a dangerous slippery slope. I mean really, how can one dismiss those beginning events that are told in a truthful factual way, and yet still believe that Jesus brought someone back alive who had been dead several days and that He was dead Himself and became alive again? Is it that they believe the Bible unless "science" supposedly "proves" different? There is no "proof" that anyone can come back alive after that long. Isn't THAT unscientific?

I couldn't agree more, it leads to all sorts of other unbiblical beliefs that either water down or worse change God's Word to suit their own beliefs. I've always felt it is easier to understand an atheistic evolutionist than it is to understand a theistic one. An atheist's logic, while flawed, is at least somewhat consistent, while a theistic evolutionist is all over the map and seems to have no consistent standard whatsoever.

 

[FallingWaters]

If I ever got to the point where I didn't believe Genesis 1 and 2 were true...

Your point of view really does confuse me.
You say that you believe that Genesis 1 is true.
I believe Genesis 1 is true.

I believe when it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," that
that was the beginning.

Yet when you explain your point of view,
apparently there was an additional beginning before the beginning.

I do not comprehend the mental gymnastics one has to go through to not understand that God meant
the beginning was the beginning,
and at the beginning, He filled the earth in 6 days and on the seventh day, rested.

 

[keyarch]

Your point of view really does confuse me.
You say that you believe that Genesis 1 is true.
I believe Genesis 1 is true.

I believe when it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," that that was the beginning.

Yet when you explain your point of view,
apparently there was an additional beginning before the beginning.

I do not comprehend the mental gymnastics one has to go through to not understand that God meant
the beginning was the beginning,
and at the beginning, He filled the earth in 6 days and on the seventh day, rested.

No mental gymnastics here. I just don't assume that Genesis 1:1-2 is the beginning of the 6 days. It's in beginning of His way (first fruits) He created THE (upper) heavens and THE earth (planet). [The foundations covered with waters (the deep and thick cloud layer)].

From that point, the first "day" starts with light.

Again, there are no mental gymnastics. That's what Scripture says when you look at the definitions of the Hebrew words. I'm not trying to make it fit with any worldview. On the contrary, I'm trying to take scripture literally for what it says in it's purist sense, and look at any apparent contradictions the same way. Sometimes it takes removing words in a translation that were put there because that's the way the translator thought.

For example -
Gen. 1:16 remove "and He made" from the end of the sentence.
Exodus 20:11 remove "in" after "For" and relate the rest of the sentence to what God did during the six days. Also use the intended word for "made" (fashioned, worked on).

See, all I'm doing is using the meanings of the actual words and not inserting ones that don't belong.

The beginning of "time" was not when God fashioned the earth for habitation and created life on it.

You ask about the "beginning". I think the following passages give us a picture of the time before Genesis 1:3. My highlighting.

Proverbs 8:22-28 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

 

[FallingWaters]

No mental gymnastics here. I just don't assume that Genesis 1:1-2 is the beginning of the 6 days. It's in beginning of His way (first fruits) He created THE (upper) heavens and THE earth (planet). [The foundations covered with waters (the deep and thick cloud layer)].

From that point, the first "day" starts with light.

Again, there are no mental gymnastics. That's what Scripture says when you look at the definitions of the Hebrew words. I'm not trying to make it fit with any worldview. On the contrary, I'm trying to take scripture literally for what it says in it's purist sense, and look at any apparent contradictions the same way. Sometimes it takes removing words in a translation that were put there because that's the way the translator thought.

For example -
Gen. 1:16 remove "and He made" from the end of the sentence.
Exodus 20:11 remove "in" after "For" and relate the rest of the sentence to what God did during the six days. Also use the intended word for "made" (fashioned, worked on).

See, all I'm doing is using the meanings of the actual words and not inserting ones that don't belong.

The beginning of "time" was not when God fashioned the earth for habitation and created life on it.

You ask about the "beginning". I think the following passages give us a picture of the time before Genesis 1:3. My highlighting.

Proverbs 8:22-28 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

There is another person on this website who does this.
I have read his posts in other forums.
He is highly intelligent and I respect his learning,
just as I respect yours,
yet I see that he also comes up with these convoluted "purist" interpretations of scripture.

I am bilingual myself.
There are many times when the pure literal translation does not convey the meaning or intention of the writer or speaker.

Are there any conservative respected theologians whose commentary agrees with your interpretation?
I'd like to see at least 2.

I am not willing to disregard the translations of hundreds of faithful men over hundreds of years for some newfangled way of "interpreting" the scriptures.

Respectfully,
FallingWaters

 

[keyarch]

There is another person on this website who does this.
I have read his posts in other forums.
He is highly intelligent and I respect his learning,
just as I respect yours,
yet I see that he also comes up with these convoluted "purist" interpretations of scripture.

I am bilingual myself.
There are many times when the pure literal translation does not convey the meaning or intention of the writer or speaker.

Are there any conservative respected theologians whose commentary agrees with your interpretation?
I'd like to see at least 2.

I am not willing to disregard the translations of hundreds of faithful men over hundreds of years for some newfangled way of "interpreting" the scriptures.

Respectfully,
FallingWaters

I know this is a little off the OP, but I wanted to answer you. I am including excerpts from just the first three commentaries that I went to after reading your post, and am including them here. I'm sure there are more that would meet your criteria, but I think this is enough to show that this interpretation is valid and not something I just made up. I highlighted in bold things I want to stand out.

(from AdamClarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft)
Gen 1:1
On this ground these words should be translated, "God in the beginning created the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth," i.e. the prima materia, or first elements, out of which the heavens and the earth were successively formed.
……
Though the Hebrew words are certainly no more than the notation of a case in most places, yet understood here in the sense above, they argue a wonderful philosophic accuracy in the statement of Moses, which brings before us, not a finished heaven and earth, as every other translation appears to do, though afterward the process of their formation is given in detail, but merely the materials out of which God built the whole system in the six following days.

--------
(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
Gen 1:1
Hence, it appears that the first verse records an event antecedent to those described in the subsequent verses. This is the absolute and aboriginal creation of the heavens and all that in them is, and of the earth in its primeval state. The former includes all those resplendent spheres which are spread before the wondering eye of man, as well as those hosts of planets and of spiritual and angelic beings which are beyond the range of his natural vision. This brings a simple, unforced meaning out of the whole chapter, and discloses a beauty and a harmony in the narrative which no other interpretation can afford. In this way the subsequent verses reveal a new effort of creative power, by which the pre-Adamic earth, in the condition in which it appears in the second verse, is prepared for the residence of a fresh animal creation, including the human race. The process is represented as it would appear to primeval man in his infantile simplicity, with whom his own position would naturally be the fixed point to which everything else was to be referred.
--------

(from Bible Knowledge Commentary/Old Testament (c) 1983, 2000 Cook Communications Ministries; Bible Knowledge Commentary/New Testament (c) 1983, 2000 Cook Communications Ministries)
Gen 1:1-2
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 bara' ("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 (bara'); 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 (tohû wabohû) seems also to provide an outline for chapter Gen 1, which describes God's bringing shape and then fullness to the formless and empty earth.
……
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.
----
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
Gen 1:1
On the contrary, because anything that the inspired narrative says, ten thousands of years, nay, millions of ages, may have elapsed since the first portions of matter were created in various parts of the universe. No limit is set to the time which may have intervened between the period when the elementary materials of our world were created and the time when it begin to be reduced to that state of order and beauty in which we behold it.
…….
Some, indeed, have considered this opening verse as only a heading or general summary of the contents of the chapter. But such an interpretation is totally inadmissible, not only because the copulative conjunction "and" intimates a continuation of the context in Gen 1:2, but because, on this view, "the earth" is abruptly introduced into the narrative without any account of its creation. The light in which the first verse is generally regarded by modern scholars is as a general preface respecting the derivative origin of all things, and then the narrative is confined exclusively to the earth.

 

[FallingWaters]

Thank you.
I will study it later.

Sorry I can't concentrate now.

 

[FallingWaters]

I have posted my answer in a new thread since I agree with you that we are off topic from the OP.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5197588-is-there-an-expanse-of-time-between-gen-11-and-gen-12-.html