Creation: Six Days or not?

[Breetai]

All the physical evidence we have points to evolution, an old earth, an old universe, etc. However, there is absolutely no physical evidence for a young earth; the creationism movement is seemingly unable to actually find something in our universe which supports their idea of a literal genesis. YEC teaches us to throw out any scientific principle (or totally lie about them) that disagrees with what we think a book says. In other words, blind adherance to religious dogma is more important than rational analysis.

The creation movement starts with the understanding that God created the world about 6000 years ago, and then uses the physical and other evidence that we have to support it. It all starts from your presuppositions.

Non-creationists begins with the billions of years presupposition and use that to interpret the evidence. It's the very same evidence that it used.

 

[Breetai]

Without Adam and Eve, we are either left with no concept of sin, or a Pelagian explanation of sin.

That's true. Except that God tells us that Adam was the first man, bar none. Death entered the world though Adam's sin. I'm not sure how you can get around that without distorting scripture.

 

[Scholar in training]

The creation movement starts with the understanding that God created the world about 6000 years ago, and then uses the physical and other evidence that we have to support it. It all starts from your presuppositions.

Non-creationists begins with the billions of years presupposition and use that to interpret the evidence. It's the very same evidence that it used.

No, TEs and OECs do not start with these presumptions. Science attempts to gather a broad explanation for data after observing that data, whereas YECs start with a conclusion and then search for evidence to support it. How many YECs have said that reason must take a backseat to faith? When in actuality, the two should have no reason to conflict.

 

[Scholar in training]

To clarify my opinion on the issue, because this topic used to trouble me, I do not think that evolution has to be a stumbling block to the faithful. Even though there may be "holes" in a theory - unexplained events, missing pieces - scientists realize that this does not invalidate an entire theory, if the sum of data supports the theory. In the same way, even if we do not know precisely when the man Adam and the woman Eve lived, or other questions arising about them because of the theory of evolution, this certainly does not invalidate the account of creation. We may say - wisely - that we do not know something when we do not know it, and still stand firm on the things we do know (such as sin).

 

[Breetai]

No, TEs and OECs do not start with these presumptions.

Really? Then what presumptions do they start with?

 

[Breetai]

I do not think that evolution has to be a stumbling block to the faithful

That's bullocks, because it certain has been a stumbling block for many Christians.

...even if we do not know precisely when the man Adam and the woman Eve lived...

...but we do know when Adam and Eve lived.

 

[invisible trousers]

The creation movement starts with the understanding that God created the world about 6000 years ago, and then uses the physical and other evidence that we have to support it. It all starts from your presuppositions.

Non-creationists begins with the billions of years presupposition and use that to interpret the evidence. It's the very same evidence that it used.

Wrong on a few points. Your description of science is completely wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method goes into great detail about what the scientific method is and how it is used. Evolution/old universe/etc do not begin with billions of years of presupposition.

I'm a little baffled by

The creation movement starts with the understanding that God created the world about 6000 years ago, and then uses the physical and other evidence that we have to support it.

and

It's the very same evidence that it used.

because YEC completely ignores any sort of evidence to the contrary of a literal genesis. I'd even say that YEC simply ignores science altogether; the movement has yet to present any evidence in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

That's bullocks, because it certain has been a stumbling block for many Christians.

Maybe a stumbling block in that we have to endure countless accusations of being non-christians, being deceived by satan, etc, by creationists solely because we disagree with them. It's pretty lame and happens all the time, yet I haven't seen a single proponent of TE do the opposite to a creationist.

 

[Scholar in training]

Really? Then what presumptions do they start with?

One presumption is that God exists.

That's bullocks, because it certain has been a stumbling block for many Christians.

If you want to get down to brass tacks, this is only because some Christians have made much to-do about nothing, linking human biological evolution to the Darwinism of the 1800's, calling all "theories" untrustworthy simply because it is a "theory", and engaging in all other sorts of obfuscation. I do respect YECs who have the integrity not to get involved in this type of crap.

On the other hand, YECism itself is and has been a stumbling block to many Christians, myself included. I was so concerned with a young earth and its connection to the Gospel that when I accepted the fact that the earth is old, I had a "crisis" of faith. If a young earth was illogical, then was the Gospel illogical as well? In fact, it drove me to the point that I did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Today, thank God, I am leaning towards the belief that they did exist as two literal people (for a time this stumbling block was very distressing, but it did not remain a problem forever; I had always recognized the wisdom in Christian morals, which was part of the reason that I was brought back to the rest of Christianity). I was brought back to Christianity in spite of YECism, certainly not because of it.

 

[Breetai]

Your description of science is completely wrong...

I don't believe that I was describing science. I'm aware of what scientific method is. I have a degree, which included a couple of 300-level courses on scientific method and the history of science. I'm simply stating that everyone lets their presuppositions, whether it's conscious or not, influence how they see things. When did the idea of millons of years plus begin to appear, and what kinds of theories did it bring out? Does the physical and chemical evidence that we have require a massive amount of time to exist? I don't believe that it does. That begins with my presupposition, from the Bible, that things are not that old.

Maybe a stumbling block in that we have to endure countless accusations of being non-christians...

Shame on them for that! I'd say that you are mistaken; that you are twisting the scriptures to agree with you, but as long as you place your faith in Christ, you are still a Christian.

To Scholar in Training:

On the other hand, SiT, I know some people who've rejected Christianity because it didn't make any sense if the "scientific facts" that were learned in school were true. You hit upon it in your post, when you talked about how you had a difficult time with the gospel when you were having a difficult time with a literal creation. I nearly rejected Christianity myself, until I started looking for explainations of things that fit better with the Bible. I've found them, and now I have no problem reading the Bible, as is, and believing it.

The "stumbling block" that you're talking about, with believing a young earth, is that it definetely conflicts with what the social norm is telling us. Why can't Christians just take the Bible as it's written? Guys like Luther did that, and it saved Christianity from the corrupt church of the time. He read the Bible as it was written.

You said that you are "leaning towards the belief that they (Adam and Eve) did exist as two literal people". Why are you leaning that way now?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Maybe a stumbling block in that we have to endure countless accusations of being non-christians, being deceived by satan, etc, by creationists solely because we disagree with them. It's pretty lame and happens all the time, yet I haven't seen a single proponent of TE do the opposite to a creationist.

You apparently haven't visited the origins forum here have you?

 

[Joykins]

No, TEs and OECs do not start with these presumptions

Really? Then what presumptions do they start with?

That the physical evidence is reliable. This is not too untenuous a scientific assumption, and it's a reasonable theological assumption as well.

 

[Breetai]

That the physical evidence is reliable.

Of course physical evidence is reliable. If you have actual physical evidence, then you can't deny that it doesn't exist! That's a redundant statement.

This is not too untenuous a scientific assumption, and it's a reasonable theological assumption as well.

That's redundant as well.

I'm not even sure why I replied to this.

 

[KEPLER]

Kepler, I haven't read this whole thread, but how long ago to you say that Adam was created?

Ah! An excellent question!...and the answer is: I don't. The Bible most certainly does not give this information, so I don't even speculate. Kepler

 

[KEPLER]

The "stumbling block" that you're talking about, with believing a young earth, is that it definetely conflicts with what the social norm is telling us. Why can't Christians just take the Bible as it's written? Guys like Luther did that, and it saved Christianity from the corrupt church of the time. He read the Bible as it was written.

Then you should evaluate the science on the same basis that Luther did, Breetai. Luther did NOT tolerate the use of BAD SCIENCE in order to force doctrine upon people. Case in point: Transubstantiation.

The RC church forced the doctrine of transubstantiation(TS) upon the laity, using the very poor scientific theories of Aristotle. Luther submitted that while TS might be true, the REASONING used to support it was faulty, therefore no one should be compelled to believe it. The same is true here. I am perfectly willing to concede that interpreting Genesis 1 as 6 "literal 24 hour lunar cycles" MAY infact be true. But the idiots like Ken Ham and Duane Gish do not get to use BAD SCIENCE and FAULTY REASONING to compell anyone to believe that it's true. (And I think that Ken outright asserting that anyone who does not believe in 6 "literal 24-hour lunar cycles" is NOT saved is EXACTLY the same kind of compulsion that the Roman church puts on its believers viz a viz TS!!!) Ken Ham. et al, VIOLATE the concept of sola scriptura when they say things like this. They believe in another Gospel.

I once emailed you an article by Meredith Kline about the folly of the dispensational (mis)understanding of Daniel 9. Well, Kline has also done outstanding work on Genesis 1 & 2, which denies the "literal" interpretation, but nevertheless asserts that Genesis 1 & 2 are TRUE. But the truth is based in the theological description of what is happening, NOT in the pseudo-scientific interpretation of what's happening. I am FIRMLY convinced that had Luther had the opportunity to read Kline's work and Ham's work, he would have lambasted Ham for the pagan that he is, and supported Kline's understanding.

Here are the two relevant papers:
Because it had not rained, Meredith Kline
Space and time in the Genesis Cosmogony, by Meredith Kline

Also, do take a look at the website where these papers are archived. This is how theology and science ought to be approached.

And here are two follow-up papers by the Rev. Mark Futato, who was a student of Kline's (at Gordon-Conwell, I think).
Because it Had Rained, Part 1, by Mark Futato
Because it Had Rained, Part 2, by Mark Futato
Happy reading.

Kepler

 

[Breetai]

Ah! An excellent question!...and the answer is: I don't. The Bible most certainly does not give this information, so I don't even speculate. Kepler

Kepler, you're a Lutheran. Lutheran's are great Bible scholars; probably the best in the world. As a Lutheran, you're telling me that The Bible most certainly does not tell us when Adam was created? It certainly does. I'm surprised that you haven't seen this before.

All you need to do is to follow the geneologies of Joseph in Matthew chapter 1 (Abraham to Joseph), and the geneolgies of Mary in Luke chapter 3 (Adam to Mary). In 1 Chronicles, we have the geneologies from Adam even to Abraham (actually even a little more). In Genesis 5, we have Adam to Noah. Using these geneologies (Masoretic text), we end up with God creating Adam in about 4000 BC. The Samaritan text and the LXX give a bit different dates, but they're all within the range of a few thousand years. That's a far cry from hundreds of thousands of years of homo sapian sapians being around.

The LCMS has been promoting that Adam was literally created about 6000 years ago, in accordance with the Holy Word of God. Believe it or not, I had the idea of creation being 6000 years ago introduced to me at a Lutheran Seminary when I was an undergrad. Before that, I would've agreed with you.

 

[KEPLER]

Kepler, you're a Lutheran. Lutheran's are great Bible scholars; probably the best in the world. As a Lutheran, you're telling me that The Bible most certainly does not tell us when Adam was created? It certainly does. I'm surprised that you haven't seen this before.

One must make all sorts of assumtions about said geneaolgies first, such as: [ASSUMPTION] The genealogies are in the bible in order that we may figure out how old the earth is.

Wrong. The genealgies are there in order to show who Messiah is.

All you need to do is to follow the geneologies of Joseph in Matthew chapter 1 (Abraham to Joseph), and the geneolgies of Mary in Luke chapter 3 (Adam to Mary). In 1 Chronicles, we have the geneologies from Adam even to Abraham (actually even a little more). In Genesis 5, we have Adam to Noah. Using these geneologies (Masoretic text), we end up with God creating Adam in about 4000 BC. The Samaritan text and the LXX give a bit different dates, but they're all within the range of a few thousand years. That's a far cry from hundreds of thousands of years of homo sapian sapians being around.

I never said anything about how long homo sapiens has been around. I deliberately did not.

Lutheran doctrine has traditionally agreed with about 4000 BC as the creation. The LCMS has been promoting that currently in accordance with both it's past understanding and the Holy Word of God. We also understand that death entered into the world through sin, not the other way around.

I never said death entered the world before sin, did I?

Yeah, my namesake Johannes Kepler thought that the creation happened in 3993 BC. I know all about that Breetai.

Kepler

 

[Breetai]

Even if we're making some assumptions, we still have only a few thousand years.

Luther agreed with Kepler too.

Which synod are you in?

 

[Breetai]

In Luther's Works, Luther said,

"...as several heretics and other vulgar persons allege, that God created everything in the beginning, and then let nature take its own independent course, so that all things now spring into being of their own power; thereby they put God on a level with a shoemaker or a tailor. This not only contradicts scripture, but it runs counter to experience".

-Luther's Works, Vol. 22, p. 28.


It seems that he would agree with the likes of Mr. Ham in this case.

 

[KEPLER]

Even if we're making some assumptions, we still have only a few thousand years.

Luther agreed with Kepler too.

Which synod are you in?

LCMS. And yes, I'm a bit of a renegade. SO are these guys:

http://metalutheran.blogspot.com/2005/10/stirring-up-trouble.html
http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php
http://www.jzuhone.org/wordpress/
http://weedon.blogspot.com/

They're all LCMS Lutherans who do not hold to the "6 literal 24-hour lunar cycles" claptrap. BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH IT.

Kepler

 

[Breetai]

Sorry, I missed part of your post Kelper:

I never said anything about how long homo sapiens has been around. I deliberately did not.

Nope, but others do. I just wanted to get the point across.

I never said death entered the world before sin, did I?

Nope, but others do. It's often in the form of "spiritual death", which is also relevent of course, but it goes along with physical death.


Obviously, I haven't read though Kline's papers yet, but I did breeze though them and looked at what she cited. I noticed that she didn't deal with the Hebrew yom at all. Why not? Shouldn't defining it be a main point on how the beginning of Genesis is to be understood?