question for YEC believers

[Jig]

I am convinced that Genesis 1–3 ought to be taken at face value—as the divinely revealed history of creation. Nothing about the Genesis text itself suggests that the biblical creation account is merely symbolic, poetic, allegorical, or mythical. The main thrust of the passage simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that creation occurred via natural evolutionary processes over long periods of time. And I don’t believe a faithful handling of the biblical text, by any acceptable principles of hermeneutics, can possibly reconcile these chapters with the theory of evolution or any of the other allegedly scientific theories about the origin of the universe.

I realize, of course, that some old–earth creationists do hold to the literal creation of Adam and affirm that Adam was a historical figure. But their decision to accept the creation of Adam as literal involves an arbitrary hermeneutical shift at Genesis 1:26–27 and then again at Genesis 2:7. If everything around these verses is handled allegorically or symbolically, it is unjustifiable to take those verses in a literal and historical sense. Therefore, the old–earth creationists’ method of interpreting the Genesis text actually undermines the historicity of Adam. Having already decided to treat the creation account itself as myth or allegory, they have no grounds to insist (suddenly and arbitrarily, it seems) that the creation of Adam is literal history. Their belief in a historical Adam is simply inconsistent with their own exegesis of the rest of the text.

But it is a necessary inconsistency if one is to affirm an old earth and remain evangelical. Because if Adam was not the literal ancestor of the entire human race, then the Bible’s explanation of how sin entered the world makes no sense. Moreover, if we didn’t fall in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ, because Christ’s position as the Head of the redeemed race exactly parallels Adam’s position as the head of the fallen race: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18–19). “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life–giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Timothy 2:13–14; Jude 14).

So in an important sense, everything Scripture says about our salvation through Jesus Christ hinges on the literal truth of what Genesis 1–3 teaches about the creation and the fall. There is no more pivotal passage of Scripture.

What old–earth creationists are doing with Genesis 1–3 is precisely what religious liberals have always done with all of Scripture—spiritualizing and reinterpreting the text allegorically to make it mean what they want it to mean. It is a dangerous way to handle Scripture. And it involves a perilous and unnecessary capitulation to the religious presuppositions of naturalism—not to mention a serious dishonor to God.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I am convinced that Genesis 1–3 ought to be taken at face value—as the divinely revealed history of creation. Nothing about the Genesis text itself suggests that the biblical creation account is merely symbolic, poetic, allegorical, or mythical. The main thrust of the passage simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that creation occurred via natural evolutionary processes over long periods of time. And I don’t believe a faithful handling of the biblical text, by any acceptable principles of hermeneutics, can possibly reconcile these chapters with the theory of evolution or any of the other allegedly scientific theories about the origin of the universe.

Nothing? Not even the fact that Genesis borrows from other mythical stories of the region and that it's poetry?

But it is a necessary inconsistency if one is to affirm an old earth and remain evangelical. Because if Adam was not the literal ancestor of the entire human race, then the Bible’s explanation of how sin entered the world makes no sense. Moreover, if we didn’t fall in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ, because Christ’s position as the Head of the redeemed race exactly parallels Adam’s position as the head of the fallen race: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18–19). “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life–giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Timothy 2:13–14; Jude 14).

If you accept Adam as "man" in general, it makes perfect sense. Things don't have to be literal to make sense or convey truth.

So in an important sense, everything Scripture says about our salvation through Jesus Christ hinges on the literal truth of what Genesis 1–3 teaches about the creation and the fall. There is no more pivotal passage of Scripture.

What old–earth creationists are doing with Genesis 1–3 is precisely what religious liberals have always done with all of Scripture—spiritualizing and reinterpreting the text allegorically to make it mean what they want it to mean. It is a dangerous way to handle Scripture. And it involves a perilous and unnecessary capitulation to the religious presuppositions of naturalism—not to mention a serious dishonor to God.

I would argue that it is more dangerous to do what you are doing here. The pivotal message of Christianity does not rely on a literal interpretation of Genesis--especially since the literal interpretation of Genesis does not coincide with reality. The core of Christianity is Jesus' message of salvation. The message of salvation is completely separate from how we got here or how old the Earth is.

 

[Mallon]

I am convinced that Genesis 1–3 ought to be taken at face value—as the divinely revealed history of creation. Nothing about the Genesis text itself suggests that the biblical creation account is merely symbolic, poetic, allegorical, or mythical. The main thrust of the passage simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that creation occurred via natural evolutionary processes over long periods of time. And I don’t believe a faithful handling of the biblical text, by any acceptable principles of hermeneutics, can possibly reconcile these chapters with the theory of evolution or any of the other allegedly scientific theories about the origin of the universe.

I realize, of course, that some old–earth creationists do hold to the literal creation of Adam and affirm that Adam was a historical figure. But their decision to accept the creation of Adam as literal involves an arbitrary hermeneutical shift at Genesis 1:26–27 and then again at Genesis 2:7. If everything around these verses is handled allegorically or symbolically, it is unjustifiable to take those verses in a literal and historical sense. Therefore, the old–earth creationists’ method of interpreting the Genesis text actually undermines the historicity of Adam. Having already decided to treat the creation account itself as myth or allegory, they have no grounds to insist (suddenly and arbitrarily, it seems) that the creation of Adam is literal history. Their belief in a historical Adam is simply inconsistent with their own exegesis of the rest of the text.

But it is a necessary inconsistency if one is to affirm an old earth and remain evangelical. Because if Adam was not the literal ancestor of the entire human race, then the Bible’s explanation of how sin entered the world makes no sense. Moreover, if we didn’t fall in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ, because Christ’s position as the Head of the redeemed race exactly parallels Adam’s position as the head of the fallen race: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18–19). “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life–giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Timothy 2:13–14; Jude 14).

So in an important sense, everything Scripture says about our salvation through Jesus Christ hinges on the literal truth of what Genesis 1–3 teaches about the creation and the fall. There is no more pivotal passage of Scripture.

What old–earth creationists are doing with Genesis 1–3 is precisely what religious liberals have always done with all of Scripture—spiritualizing and reinterpreting the text allegorically to make it mean what they want it to mean. It is a dangerous way to handle Scripture. And it involves a perilous and unnecessary capitulation to the religious presuppositions of naturalism—not to mention a serious dishonor to God.

That reminded me of some things Luther said:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."

I wonder what he would have thought of you... He probably would have said something along the lines of "You're not an evangelical if you don't believe the Bible when it says the sun goes around the earth and the sky is solid."

(BTW, no one here is arguing that Genesis be reconciled with evolution. In fact, that's the exact opposite of what we're saying. I wonder if you truly understand the position you're arguing against. Do you know what the difference is between concordist and accommodationist hermeneutics?

Oh, and I would argue that the fact that the Genesis creation stories are contradictory, contain refrains, and speak of magical trees and talking snakes pretty strongly favours a non-literal -- or rather, a non-concordist -- reading.)

 

[gluadys]

I am convinced that Genesis 1–3 ought to be taken at face value—as the divinely revealed history of creation. Nothing about the Genesis text itself suggests that the biblical creation account is merely symbolic, poetic, allegorical, or mythical. The main thrust of the passage simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that creation occurred via natural evolutionary processes over long periods of time. And I don’t believe a faithful handling of the biblical text, by any acceptable principles of hermeneutics, can possibly reconcile these chapters with the theory of evolution or any of the other allegedly scientific theories about the origin of the universe.

I realize, of course, that some old–earth creationists do hold to the literal creation of Adam and affirm that Adam was a historical figure. But their decision to accept the creation of Adam as literal involves an arbitrary hermeneutical shift at Genesis 1:26–27 and then again at Genesis 2:7. If everything around these verses is handled allegorically or symbolically, it is unjustifiable to take those verses in a literal and historical sense. Therefore, the old–earth creationists’ method of interpreting the Genesis text actually undermines the historicity of Adam. Having already decided to treat the creation account itself as myth or allegory, they have no grounds to insist (suddenly and arbitrarily, it seems) that the creation of Adam is literal history. Their belief in a historical Adam is simply inconsistent with their own exegesis of the rest of the text.

But it is a necessary inconsistency if one is to affirm an old earth and remain evangelical. Because if Adam was not the literal ancestor of the entire human race, then the Bible’s explanation of how sin entered the world makes no sense. Moreover, if we didn’t fall in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ, because Christ’s position as the Head of the redeemed race exactly parallels Adam’s position as the head of the fallen race: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18–19). “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life–giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Timothy 2:13–14; Jude 14).

So in an important sense, everything Scripture says about our salvation through Jesus Christ hinges on the literal truth of what Genesis 1–3 teaches about the creation and the fall. There is no more pivotal passage of Scripture.

What old–earth creationists are doing with Genesis 1–3 is precisely what religious liberals have always done with all of Scripture—spiritualizing and reinterpreting the text allegorically to make it mean what they want it to mean. It is a dangerous way to handle Scripture. And it involves a perilous and unnecessary capitulation to the religious presuppositions of naturalism—not to mention a serious dishonor to God.

To be honest, I don't see a problem with a universe being of immense age. I just don't believe in it.

Changed your tune pretty quick didn't you. First, the age of the universe is of no concern, you just don't happen to believe it. Suddenly it is pivotal to the message of salvation.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

That doesn't say the earth is spherical.


That doesn't say the earth is spherical, either. It says the earth is a circle, which is a flat, 2-D object.

It can also mean to be spherical.


Like I said before I am uneducated, but if it was a flat 2-D object, then God would only see it as a circle, if He was looking/sitting directly north, or directly south of the 2-D object. Any other angle would appear like a straight horizontal line, or an oval shape.

Moreover, the passage you cite goes on to say that the earth is like the floor of a tent (read: flat), and that the skies are spread above the earth like a tent (this further reinforces what I said earlier about the Bible describing the sky as a solid dome).

I really do not see how this supports your flat earth call one jot?

Is your floor flat or round?

 

[Jig]

Changed your tune pretty quick didn't you. First, the age of the universe is of no concern, you just don't happen to believe it. Suddenly it is pivotal to the message of salvation.

I should clarify my position since you feel I have contradicted myself.

I personally do not have a problem with believing in an old Earth if the Bible taught it and if my philosophical foundation on interpreting the evidence allowed it - hence the reasons I don't believe it.

Just as you wouldn't have a problem with believing in a young Earth if your philosophical foundation on interpreting the evidence allowed it and if your hermeneutics of Genesis one were the same as mine.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It can also mean to be spherical.

Circle does not equal sphere no matter how you cut it.

Like I said before I am uneducated, but if it was a flat 2-D object, then God would only see it as a circle, if He was looking/sitting directly north, or directly south of the 2-D object. Any other angle would appear like a straight horizontal line, or an oval shape.

So is God not aware of three dimensional space or something? The verses you are arguing against were used in the past to justify a flat earth. In fact, some fringe groups still use those verses today. To the flat earth society, YECism is what theistic evolution is to YECism. That is, completely and utterly wrong and dangerous, because YECists are distorting the plain truth of scripture.

 

[Mallon]

It can also mean to be spherical.

No, it can't. A sphere is a sphere. A circle is a circle. A square is a square. A cube is a cube. A triangle is a triangle. And a pyramid is a pyramid.
If, as a YEC, you're going to insist on a "literalist" hermeneutic when it comes to the science of the Bible, then it's important that you be consistent. You don't get to apply a literalist/concordist hermeneutic when it suits you and then metaphorize the Hebrew science you don't like. The Bible says in several places that the earth is flat. It says the sky is hard. It says the stars are just little pinpricks of light that will one day fall to earth. It's rife with descriptions of an ancient Hebrew cosmology. Now ask yourself why should we be so quick to accept the Hebrew cosmogony and biology presented in the Bible.

Like I said before I am uneducated, but if it was a flat 2-D object, then God would only see it as a circle, if He was looking/sitting directly north, or directly south of the 2-D object. Any other angle would appear like a straight horizontal line, or an oval shape.

The Bible doesn't describe the earth from God's perspective, though. It describes the earth from man's perspective. Sunset/sunrise and all that. It's an earth-bound view.

And that's the point. The message of God in the Bible is accommodated to man. It is communicated via the experience, perspective, and context of the ancient Hebrew people. It uses their language, their science, and their limited and fallible perspective to get its point across. And we should expect this from a God who manifested himself as a man and walked among us so that we could relate to Him. When God talks to us, He gets on one knee, lowers himself to our level, and uses our language and experience to deliver a message of peace, love, and salvation, as any father would. He doesn't take over our minds and miraculously fill it with scientific insight, so I have no idea why YECs insist He has done this in the Bible. Hopefully Jig is reading this, too, as it explains why we shouldn't expect to read about evolution and other scientific insights in the Bible, as he seems to think if evolution were true.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

Circle does not equal sphere no matter how you cut it.

Then I guess you argue against these guys.

The original Hebrew word is (chug), which means circle and sphere

Benjamin Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons), p. 249.
See also: Ehud Ben-Yehuda and David Weinstein, Pocket English-Hebrew, Hebrew-English Dictionary (New York: Washington Square Press, 1961), p. 252.

So is God not aware of three dimensional space or something? The verses you are arguing against were used in the past to justify a flat earth. In fact, some fringe groups still use those verses today. To the flat earth society, YECism is what theistic evolution is to YECism. That is, completely and utterly wrong and dangerous, because YECists are distorting the plain truth of scripture.

In your opinion of course!

The plain truth of scripture is young earth.

Do you accept that the generations from Jesus Christ to Adam, was around 4,000 years?

Do you believe Jesus when He said "That from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female"?

 

[Mallon]

The Hebrews had a word for sphere, PoC. It was "duwr", and they never used it to describe the shape of the earth. "Chuwg" refers to a circle.

Besides, even if we were to grant you that "chuwg" means circle or sphere, we would have to look to other verses in order to discern between the two meanings. Many biblical verses refer to the earth having "edges", and Matthew 4:8 and Daniel 4:10-11 describe a world that can be seen in its entirety from the top of a tall mountain or tree. These descriptions only make sense if the world was thought to be a flat circle, not a sphere. The Bible says the earth is flat. Believe it.

 

[Dark_Lite]

T
In your opinion of course!

The plain truth of scripture is young earth.

No, not in my opinion. But rather, in the opinion of the flat earthers. They think that YECists do the same thing to Scripture that YECists think Theistic Evolutionists do to Scripture.

 

[crawfish]

I did not ignore it.
Perhaps God can cause you not to be so arrogant.

If you ask me, arrogance is some high-minded and judgmental pushing of scriptures that seem to support your point while blithely avoiding dealing with scriptures that do not. Isn't ALL scripture God-breathed? Not just the ones you pick and choose.

If you are truly honest, you will either deal with those questions or simply say "I don't know". No one would think worse of you (and, in fact, most of us would think quite highly of such an answer).

 

[crawfish]

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

So it would stand to reason that the scripture you provide as 'flat earth' are not to be taken as literal.

If you stand on a flat land, look around you; you'll see a circle encompassing the ends of the horizon, and the skies appearing to drop and meet the land on the edges. Just like a huge tent. Isn't this closer to a literal interpretation of how the author is symbolically portraying the earth, rather than reading in knowledge that wouldn't be common for two thousand more years?

 

[Partaker of Christ]

If you ask me,

I wasn't

 

[crawfish]

I wasn't

Heh. I guess you weren't. I leave you to your myopia, then.

 

[gluadys]

I should clarify my position since you feel I have contradicted myself.

I personally do not have a problem with believing in an old Earth if the Bible taught it and if my philosophical foundation on interpreting the evidence allowed it - hence the reasons I don't believe it.

Just as you wouldn't have a problem with believing in a young Earth if your philosophical foundation on interpreting the evidence allowed it and if your hermeneutics of Genesis one were the same as mine.

I would make one slight change for accuracy. You would personally have no problem with believing in an old earth if you believed the Bible taught it.

The bible doesn't teach an old earth, of course, but it doesn't teach a young earth either. It is your philosophical foundation that says the bible teaches a young earth.

And it is your philosophical foundation that says "because I believe the bible teaches a young earth, I need pay no attention to any evidence from creation itself to the contrary."

And it is also your philosophical foundation that says nothing is to be believed unless it is taught in scripture---as if scripture alone is to be our sole source of information about anything and everything. Yet in practice we all hold information to be true which is not mentioned in scripture at all. After all, here we are conversing via the Internet.

I respect your right to adopt the philosophical foundation you have chosen. I just think it is important to note that it influences your beliefs about scripture as much as your beliefs about the age of the earth.

For my part I question giving ANY philosophical foundation that much authority.

 

[driewerf]

The plain truth of scripture is young earth.

That's too bad for the scripture. The physical evidence shows the earth is 4.4 billion years old.

Do you accept that the generations from Jesus Christ to Adam, was around 4,000 years?

No, because there wasn't an Adam.

Do you believe Jesus when He said "That from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female"?

No.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

That's too bad for the scripture. The physical evidence shows the earth is 4.4 billion years old.

That's too bad for the erroneous interpreters of the physical evidence, the scriptures tell us it is now around 6,000 years since God created the heavens and the earth.

No, because there wasn't an Adam.


No.

Deny the truth all you like, but truth will not change just because you are incapable of believing or understanding it.

 

[driewerf]

That's too bad for the erroneous interpreters of the physical evidence, the scriptures tell us it is now around 6,000 years since God created the heavens and the earth.
.

I'm sure you will now point the errors the scientists make...

 

[juvenissun]

If you stand on a flat land, look around you; you'll see a circle encompassing the ends of the horizon, and the skies appearing to drop and meet the land on the edges. Just like a huge tent. Isn't this closer to a literal interpretation of how the author is symbolically portraying the earth, rather than reading in knowledge that wouldn't be common for two thousand more years?

And you think ancient people did not know the difference between a wide open arc and a circle?

If they could imagine a disk-like earth, then why is the word "corner" or "four corners" used to describe the earth? Provided that I think ancient people only knew one direction (east), not four directions.