Young Earth Creationism

[Calminian]

I read the AiG articles, and they made clear that Augustine was not a six day creationist, and that he believed in our theology being informed by science. ....

And yet, he believe Genesis as historical narrative and believed in a young earth which was against the science of is day.

Thus, Augustine offers no real support for old-earth views. He admitted his uncertainty and fallibility; he was significantly less educated on the issue than others; and even when he strayed from the Bible’s clear teaching, he only did so to espouse the possibility of creation in an instant—not old-earth ideas of his time, and certainly not the millions-of-years ideas of old-earth creationists today.​

Note, there was no science of his day that affirmed creation in an instant a few thousand years ago.

 

[Calminian]

Sadly, no passage of Scripture concurs. As was pointed out, God personally inscribed in a stone tablet that He created the Heavens and the Earth in six days. Kinda hard to argue that point.

You'd think, anyways.

 

[Willtor]

Sorry, Will, there is not a single soul here buying that. You're an older earther through and through. Own it and embrace it.

But it's totally irrelevant. Indeed, ignoring my concession, if science were shown to be a faulty pursuit, tomorrow, my interpretation of Genesis wouldn't change a bit. When I discovered the figurative interpretation of Genesis, it was like a breath of fresh air. At the time, I actually still thought the earth was young.

Let me propose an alternate theory why my concession is so difficult to "buy": the modern literal interpretation of Genesis depends on combating modern science. It actually can't stand up on its own without a modern geology/biology/astronomy opponent. If I concede science, you have no way to evaluate a different interpretation of Genesis.

That is why this keeps coming back to the age of the earth.

No, actually I'll pick for while. You've steered the ship long enough. Hmmm, let's see. Let's talk about:

Theophilus of Antioch
Methodius
Victorinus of Pettau
Ephrem the Syrian
Epiphanius of Salamis
Basil of Caesarea
Cyril of Jerusalem
Ambrose of Milan (Augustine's mentor)

Those are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure you won't mind discussing them, being as open-minded as you are.

You say all of these took Genesis figuratively? Basil of Caesarea definitely took it literally. In fact, his interpretation was the model of literal interpretations until it was undermined by science (Pasteur). His book, The Hexaemeron, was basically the literal counterpoint to Augustine's book, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (which I cited).

I don't know what source you got this list from, but I'm sure St. Basil took Genesis literally. You don't have to believe me. Again, this is the great thing about primary sources! The Hexaemeron is online and you can read it for yourself. I have. I'd be happy to discuss anything you'd like about it.

 

[Calminian]

....You say all of these took Genesis figuratively? Basil of Caesarea definitely took it literally. In fact, his interpretation was the model of literal interpretations until it was undermined by science (Pasteur). His book, The Hexaemeron, was basically the literal counterpoint to Augustine's book, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (which I cited).

I don't know what source you got this list from, but I'm sure St. Basil took Genesis literally. You don't have to believe me. Again, this is the great thing about primary sources! The Hexaemeron is online and you can read it for yourself. I have. I'd be happy to discuss anything you'd like about it.

You're obviously a troll Will, you just gave yourself away. Talented trolls keep their cover longer.

Genesis Means What It Says: Basil (AD 329–379)

I know you don't like these guys, but their article is filled with quotes from the Hexaemeron. Don't get mad at me. I'm just the messenger.

I think my work is done here.

 

[Percivale]

Sadly, no passage of Scripture concurs. As was pointed out, God personally inscribed in a stone tablet that He created the Heavens and the Earth in six days. Kinda hard to argue that point.

There are definitely places in the Bible that use the word 'day' figuratively. And it seems very unlikely that the verse you mention was actually on the stone tablets, otherwise why would Moses skip it and give a different reason for the Sabbath in Deuteronomy?

 

[Calminian]

There are definitely places in the Bible that use the word 'day' figuratively. And it seems very unlikely that the verse you mention was actually on the stone tablets, otherwise why would Moses skip it and give a different reason for the Sabbath in Deuteronomy?

Yes, and they're obvious. In fact every occurrence of the word day in the Bible is obvious, except in Genesis for some reason.

 

[Percivale]

You're obviously a troll Will, you just gave yourself away. Talented trolls keep their cover longer.

Genesis Means What It Says: Basil (AD 329–379)

I know you don't like these guys, but their article is filled with quotes from the Hexaemeron. Don't get mad at me. I'm just the messenger.

I think my work is done here.

Why are you just the messenger for AIG? Why not read more widely?

I see you didn't catch WIlltor's point. I guess I should have posted what I almost did when you brought of that list of church fathers: Willtor is not arguing that a majority of ECFs were non-literalists, therefore bringing up that list is dodging the issue. You implied that Augustine was the only ECF that used a figurative interpretation, so he brought up a few others, which you chose to avoid. Bringing up ECFs that agree with you is avoiding the issue.

 

[Willtor]

You're obviously a troll Will, you just gave yourself away. Talented trolls keep their cover longer.

Of course I know exactly what you meant by posting the list. The problem is that I already asserted that there were ECFs who took it literally. This isn't a point of contention. So... how does it help to cite ECFs who took it literally? If, indeed, the burden is on me (as you said it was) then _of course_ I drive the discussion.

It could be otherwise, if you wanted to take the burden on, that they should be treated the same. And we could discuss ECFs who took Genesis literally. Obviously, it makes no sense to discuss them if we dispute whether there were ECFs who took it figuratively.

Genesis Means What It Says: Basil (AD 329–379)

I know you don't like these guys, but their article is filled with quotes from the Hexaemeron. Don't get mad at me. I'm just the messenger.

I remember AiG citing the Hexaemeron. And then I remember reading it. And I remember discovering that it was at odds with their (my) literal interpretation. Have you read it? You should. It's very good. St. Basil was a very godly man with a lot of insights into the text. If you held his interpretation, I would agree to disagree with you. As it is, because you hold George McCreedy Price's interpretation, I persist.

I think my work is done here.

I've pretty much proven my point about Augustine. Why not have a go with another ECF?

 

[KWCrazy]

There are definitely places in the Bible that use the word 'day' figuratively.

Genesis 1-3 is not among them. The author goes out of his way to describe a solar day as both an evening and morning; one Earth cycle; and a number designated day. In no place does that ever mean a period of time; such as "in the day." It can't be interpreted any other way. The verbiage makes it crystal clear.

And it seems very unlikely that the verse you mention was actually on the stone tablets, otherwise why would Moses skip it and give a different reason for the Sabbath in Deuteronomy?

He doesn't, and I've dealt with this deliberate misrepresentation before. You reference Deuteronomy 5.
12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.
13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

When it says "As the Lord has commanded thee" it references Exodus 20:11. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." This is not a new definition of the intent of the Sabbath, but a reminder of the Commandment.

 

[roman2819]

Genesis 1-3 is not among them. The author goes out of his way to describe a solar day as both an evening and morning; one Earth cycle; and a number designated day. In no place does that ever mean a period of time; such as "in the day." It can't be interpreted any other way. The verbiage makes it crystal clear.
...
....
When it says "As the Lord has commanded thee" it references Exodus 20:11. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." This is not a new definition of the intent of the Sabbath, but a reminder of the Commandment.[/COLOR]

I believe the word "day" in Genesis refers to a stage or phase. It means that God created the earth in organized stage eg: He made light, then atmosphere, then sun/moon, separated land/sea at one stage, then He moved to create living things in different but distinct and organized stages - in the sky, then sea, then land. God did not create haphazardly here and there, so to speak. The word day is used, instead of stage or phase, because "day" fits the prose of writing in religious manuscript.

I believe that there was evening and morning means the end of one stage, and the beginning of another. God only make sun amd moon on day 3, so how would evening and morning happen on furst 2 days?

Even though Exodus 20:11 quoted Genesis, it does not surely mean God literally created in 6 days.

 

[Percivale]

And yet, he believe Genesis as historical narrative and believed in a young earth which was against the science of is day.

Thus, Augustine offers no real support for old-earth views. He admitted his uncertainty and fallibility; he was significantly less educated on the issue than others; and even when he strayed from the Bible’s clear teaching, he only did so to espouse the possibility of creation in an instant—not old-earth ideas of his time, and certainly not the millions-of-years ideas of old-earth creationists today.​

Note, there was no science of his day that affirmed creation in an instant a few thousand years ago.

There were no scientific theories of origins in Augustine's day, only hypotheses. As a philosopher, Augustine was as close to being a scientist as the next, so his belief in instant creation was as close to being a scientific theory of origins as Democritus' theory of atoms was.

KWCrazy:
I grant evening and morning sounds like literal days and that is the more straightforward interpretation. I deny that it is absolutely certainly the correct one.
Why did you ignore Deut 5:15, which I was referring to. It says the reason God commanded the sabbath was because Israel were slaves in Egypt. God could have multiple reasons for instituting the sabbath, but they weren't necessarily written on the tablets or spoken from mt Sinai. Notice only the first two commandments are spoken by God in first person, after that it switches to third person. "As the Lord commanded probably refers to the manner of keeping the sabbath, not the reason for it's institution. Also you know there were sabbath years, which may have also been done to parallel God's creation pattern. What Exodus 20:11 does probably rule out is the gap theory, but not the day age theory necessarily.

 

[KWCrazy]

God only make sun amd moon on day 3, so how would evening and morning happen on furst 2 days?

1. God made light.
2. a rotating earth with a single light source creates a day and night.

Even though Exodus 20:11 quoted Genesis, it does not surely mean God literally created in 6 days.

Exodus 20:11 (carved by the finger of God)
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

How does six days not mean six days?

Since there is no passage of Scripture which contradicts Genesis, your rejection of it is non based in the Scriptures but rather a rejection of the Scriptures.

Which other miracle do you deny, and why?

 

[KWCrazy]

KWCrazy:
I grant evening and morning sounds like literal days and that is the more straightforward interpretation. I deny that it is absolutely certainly the correct one.

There isn't a single verse in Scriptures which affords a different definition.

Why did you ignore Deut 5:15, which I was referring to.

I didn't. I said that you misrepresented it, quoting liars who distort the Scriptures and convince others of their lies.

It says the reason God commanded the sabbath was because Israel were slaves in Egypt.

Sorry, but it absolutely does not.

Deuteronomy 5:
1 Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors[a] that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain. 5 (At that time I stood between the Lord and you to declare to you the word of the Lord, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And he said:

6 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

This is Moses speaking to the Israelites, reminding them of the Ten Commandments where were given on Mt. Sinai. This is not the first presentation of the commandments, not is a discussion of why they were given. He reminds them to keep the Sabbath day holy and give honor to the God who brought them out of slavery.

12 “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do."

The Sabbath was begun in Genesis one, after the Lord created the Heavens and Earth in six days and rested from His work on the seventh. This is what the Bible teaches, not the unscriptural heresy you are claiming (without evidence).

God could have multiple reasons for instituting the sabbath, but they weren't necessarily written on the tablets or spoken from mt Sinai.

Adam had to respect the Sabbath. Moses did not create it. It was commanded from the beginning, not handed down at Mt Sinai.

Find proof in the word of God and I may consider it. I reject any doctrine of man which has no evidence in the Scriptures.

 

[BobRyan]

There were no scientific theories of origins in Augustine's day, only hypotheses. As a philosopher, Augustine was as close to being a scientist as the next, so his belief in instant creation was as close to being a scientific theory of origins as Democritus' theory of atoms was.

KWCrazy:
I grant evening and morning sounds like literal days and that is the more straightforward interpretation. I deny that it is absolutely certainly the correct one.
Why did you ignore Deut 5:15, which I was referring to. It says the reason God commanded the sabbath was because Israel were slaves in Egypt. God could have multiple reasons for instituting the sabbath, but they weren't necessarily written on the tablets or spoken from mt Sinai. Notice only the first two commandments are spoken by God in first person, after that it switches to third person. "As the Lord commanded probably refers to the manner of keeping the sabbath, not the reason for it's institution. Also you know there were sabbath years, which may have also been done to parallel God's creation pattern. What Exodus 20:11 does probably rule out is the gap theory, but not the day age theory necessarily.

Ex 20:8-11 rules out the day age theory - beyond all question.

How interesting that the question comes back to the "kind of literature" that Gen 1-11 is -- it his historic account. Just as Ex 20 is legal code.

This point that the "literature" is written as "historic account" - is admitted to not only by Bible believing Christians but also by the evolutionist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all "world class universities".
Originally Posted by BobRyan

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================
​

 

[Calminian]

There were no scientific theories of origins in Augustine's day, only hypotheses.

That's all there are today, my friend.

As a philosopher, Augustine was as close to being a scientist as the next, so his belief in instant creation was as close to being a scientific theory of origins as Democritus' theory of atoms was.

But Augustine believed creation to be entirely an act of God. He did not believe it was the result of natural processes which is what science looks for. In regard to the creation of the world, Augustine was actually anti-science.

 

[Willtor]

That's all there are today, my friend.



But Augustine believed creation to be entirely an act of God. He did not believe it was the result of natural processes which is what science looks for. In regard to the creation of the world, Augustine was actually anti-science.

His idea of the formation of the world was, as you say, restricted to supernatural events. But he didn't take a hard line on any of it:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

The Literal Meaning of Genesis

 

[miamited]

God only make sun amd moon on day 3, so how would evening and morning happen on furst 2 days?

Even though Exodus 20:11 quoted Genesis, it does not surely mean God literally created in 6 days.

Hi roman,

I believe that it does and evening and morning are what today we call pm and am. No light source is needed to define these periods of time. The sun does not come up at midnight, nor the moon at noon.

They are both, evening and morning and am and pm, merely two equal divisions of the time that it takes for the earth to make one full rotation upon its axis. Unfortunately, it is a very common misconception that we have that evening and morning have anything to do with the sun, moon or light at all.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Percivale]

Deuteronomy 5:
1 Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors[a] that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain. 5 (At that time I stood between the Lord and you to declare to you the word of the Lord, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And he said:

6 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

This is Moses speaking to the Israelites, reminding them of the Ten Commandments where were given on Mt. Sinai. This is not the first presentation of the commandments, not is a discussion of why they were given. He reminds them to keep the Sabbath day holy and give honor to the God who brought them out of slavery.

12 “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do."

Again, you stopped the quote at vs 14, why did you not examine vs 15? Please read verse 15. Then look up the word 'therefore' in the dictionary.

I didn't. I said that you misrepresented it, quoting liars who distort the Scriptures and convince others of their lies.

I quoted nothing but scripture. This seems to be an example of how people are quickest to accuse others of things they are themselves guilty of.

 

[Percivale]

quote=Calminian;67069845]That's all there are today, my friend.

But Augustine believed creation to be entirely an act of God. He did not believe it was the result of natural processes which is what science looks for. In regard to the creation of the world, Augustine was actually anti-science.[/quote]
You, along with many atheists, see a conflict between the supernatural and science. I do not. Science explains the observed data, and a supernatural explanation is perfectly acceptable and scientific in my opinion if it best explains the observed data; if any testable predictions it makes are verified, etc. I reject flood geology not because it is supernatural but because it fails to explain the data: patterns of radiometric dating, the fossil record, the vast amounts of fossil fuels, and much more. When I only read YEC literature they did not share the details that disconfirm the theory; if you really care about truth you should read the writings of OEC and TE christians too.

 

[Calminian]

...You, along with many atheists, see a conflict between the supernatural and science. I do not. ....

That's because you deny the existence of signs and wonders that the Bible talks about. Atheists may not believe in miracle, but they understand what they are and know they are scientific anomalies or even vocations of science. It's really just a matter of your hostility toward the Bible.