I need an explanation

[IisJustMe]

Please understand, I am an unapologetic YEC believer. I take the Genesis account literally, with no gap, with no evidence whatsoever for "evolutionary creation" or creation that involves a previously existing planet that circled the Sun for millenia upon millenia upon millenia until God deigned to intervene and bring forth life upon its surface.

Here's the problem as I see it. As a YEC'ist, I must ask myself, "Is it plausible?" If my God is big enough, anything is possible. So yes, YEC is absolutely possible, and in my opinion (with my two engineering degrees and my Biblical Counseling/Pastoral Studies degree), the only plausible explanation. I find nothing the other viewpoints can offer that disproves the facts of God's word. Though alternate explanations can be constructed, there is nothing that lines up with God's word, nor do any of the alternate explanations render the biblical explanation incorrect, or call it into question.

What I see OEC'ists, TE'ists, and others doing, is giving less weight to God's word than the arguable scientific evidence. Perhaps that's too harsh a judgment, but everything I see others besides YEC'ists doing is trying to make science fit Scripture, ignoring the obvious fact that God is not constrained by physical rules, laws, or limitations. Psalm 19 speaks eloquently of the evidence of creation, the joys of acknowledging His truth, and also the dangers of ignoring that evidence:

1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.
10 They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.
11 Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;
In keeping them there is great reward.
12 Who can discern his errors?
Acquit me of hidden faults.
13 Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins;
Let them not rule over me;
Then I will be blameless,
And I shall be acquitted of great transgression.
14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer.

Please don't make the obvious error of thinking David wrote of the Sun circling the earth. The relationship of the Sun to the the Earth is not the subject of vv. 5, 6. The relationship of God to His creation is the subject matter of this entire Psalm.

So the explanation that I seek is: Why ponder the error-prone, sin-based answers of man to a creation accomplished by the power of God? How big is your God? How do you claim to be a believer in part of His word, but not all of it? Those are the real issues I see in the creationist debate, and by "creationist" I include all Christians, because obviously we all believe God created, we just disagree on how.

 

[vossler]

Psalm 19:14 is my morning prayer. Thanks for posting the entire Psalm, aahhh what a soothingly wonderful Psalm it is.

 

[picnic]

Just because I don't take the first chapter of Genesis literally, doesn't mean that I don't take the whole of God's Bible as God's word. Even YECs will take parts of the Bible as metaphorical, allegorical. I look at Genesis 1 and ask myself what it tells me about God and I find that he a powerful, great and good God.

picnic

 

[IisJustMe]

I look at Genesis 1 and ask myself what it tells me about God and I find that he a powerful, great and good God.

picnic

Absolutely! Ok, there's another thing all creationists can agree on. So tell me, and I don't ask this disrespectfully or to start an argument (I want to avoid letting this thread take that tone, if we can all agree on that too):

As a powerful, great, and good God, is He not able to simply speak the universe into existence? Just let me say, as a very minor student of Hebrew (having taken the eight hours required for my theological degree), that the language of Genesis chapter one is literal, rather than figurative. You're quite right, there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical, analogy, metaphorical, parable, etc. But the tense and context of Genesis 1 rule out anything but a literal interpretation. Any Hebrew scholar you ask will agree on that aspect of the language in the chapter, though they may have a different explanation of "why you can't really take it literally" in the creationist discussion.

 

[Mallon]

You "ignore" God's word every day -- you just don't know it. The Bible also teaches us that the atmosphere has windows in it and the Earth rests on four cornerstones. Do you believe that? Or do you believe that science has shown otherwise and that the verses that refer to these things, while they speak about the truth of our Lord, are just "metaphorical"? Because if you think they are metaphorical, then you are not a Bible-believing literalist who "takes God at His word", but a hypocrite.

 

[Melethiel]

Is He able to? Absolutely. How did He? That's the argument.

 

[IisJustMe]

Psalm 19:14 is my morning prayer. Thanks for posting the entire Psalm, aahhh what a soothingly wonderful Psalm it is.

Among others. I love praying Scripture back to the Father through the Son!

 

[Pats]

Though alternate explanations can be constructed, there is nothing that lines up with God's word, nor do any of the alternate explanations render the biblical explanation incorrect, or call it into question.

Actually, YEC is the modern interpretation that has been altered to give the scripture another meaning.

What I see OEC'ists, TE'ists, and others doing, is ignoring God's word. Perhaps that's too harsh a judgment, but everything I see others besides YEC'ists doing is trying to make science fit Scripture, ignoring the obvious fact that God is not constrained by physical rules, laws, or limitations. Psalm 19 speaks eloquently of the evidence of creation, the joys of acknowledging His truth, and also the dangers of ignoring that evidence:

And all I see you doing is coming in here to reign down condemnation and judgement on your fellow Christians.

If God is awesome (and I believe He is) and capable of all things, why shove Him into a tiny box that only interprates His scriptures in a finite way?

4

Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.

6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Please don't make the obvious error of thinking David wrote of the Sun circling the earth. The relationship of the Sun to the the Earth is not the subject of vv. 5, 6. The relationship of God to His creation is the subject matter of this entire Psalm.

But geocentrists do think they are literally interprating it that way. Perhaps the amount of time God took to create the earth and the the literal existance of Adam and the tree of life are not the subject of Genesis.

Perhaps the story, the depiction of original sin, the symbolism of the goat's death to cover Adam's sin, perhaps that's the only real point to Genesis in the first place? and the rest of it is politics the churches have invented.

So the explanation that I seek is: Why ponder the error-prone, sin-based answers of man to a creation accomplished by the power of God? How big is your God? How do you claim to be a believer in part of His word, but not all of it? Those are the real issues I see in the creationist debate, and by "creationist" I include all Christians, because obviously we all believe God created, we just disagree on how.

My God is depicted in Job telling him that man does cannot know how God fashioned the earth.

 

[Pats]

So tell me, and I don't ask this disrespectfully or to start an argument (I want to avoid letting this thread take that tone, if we can all agree on that too):

Perhaps then you'll want to not start your OP off by telling everyone who doesn't agree with you that their God is not as big as your God.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Absolutely! Ok, there's another thing all creationists can agree on. So tell me, and I don't ask this disrespectfully or to start an argument (I want to avoid letting this thread take that tone, if we can all agree on that too):

As a powerful, great, and good God, is He not able to simply speak the universe into existence? Just let me say, as a very minor student of Hebrew (having taken the eight hours required for my theological degree), that the language of Genesis chapter one is literal, rather than figurative. You're quite right, there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical, analogy, metaphorical, parable, etc. But the tense and context of Genesis 1 rule out anything but a literal interpretation. Any Hebrew scholar you ask will agree on that aspect of the language in the chapter, though they may have a different explanation of "why you can't really take it literally" in the creationist discussion.

It is never a question on whether God could or could not do something. It is only a question of what God did or did not do.

Could God have made the world in six days? Sure.
Could God have made the world in six seconds? Sure.
Could God have made the world over 15 billion years? Sure.

If creation is a valid witness of Gods work, then it appears that God did not make the world in six days.

Can I trust Gods creation to give me an accurate witness? Why or why not?

 

[IisJustMe]

You "ignore" God's word every day -- you just don't know it. The Bible also teaches us that the atmosphere has windows in it and the Earth rests on four cornerstones. Do you believe that? Or do you believe that science has shown otherwise and that the verses that refer to these things, while they speak about the truth of our Lord, are just "metaphorical"? Because if you think they are metaphorical, then you are not a Bible-believing literalist who "takes God at His word", but a hypocrite.

This kind of post is totally unproductive in finding common ground.

First, in answer to your question, I've studied both Greek and Hebrew, though obviously not extensively. I do know enough about both languages to be able to read the languages, and recognize that, unlike English, both have a vocabulary for figurative vs. literal interpretation. Unless one studies the languages or avails him/herself of a good concordance, once can't read the English and understand what is literal vs. figurative. English relies on context and the readers' understanding to convey literalism vs. figurative concepts. Greek relies on verb tense and context, having six tenses, for example, vs. only three for English, while Hebrew relies on sentence structure and the overall mood of the writing to differentiate between a literal idea, vs. a figurative thought.

For the record (as I stated in another post on this thread) the language of Genesis chapter one is of a literal nature (I.e., a literal 24-hour day, God's speaking into existence the various aspects of creation, etc.) and cannot be read in a figurative manner, by the rules of interpretation established by centuries of translators.

Now, if you wish to continue the discussion, I'd appreciate your respectful approach, rather than an instant attack, such as the one with which your post here. Otherwise, free free to ignore this thread. Thank you.

 

[Pats]

See, this is what I was hoping to avoid

I have found the tone of the OP can effect the responses it recieves.

 

[IisJustMe]

Perhaps then you'll want to not start your OP off by telling everyone who doesn't agree with you that their God is not as big as your God.

... not a condemning statement of any kind. If you took as judgment, I'm sorry. It was not intended that way at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it my view is that the main reason TE'ists and OEC'ists and other non-YEC'ists seek other explanations than a literal, six-day creation some 10,000 years ago is that they don't think God would function that way. Since it is the most economical use of time and resources (and we've never seen God wasteful or capricious) my question is, why wouldn't He work that way?

 

[Mallon]

This kind of post is totally unproductive in finding common ground.

What common ground were you looking for? You don't seem to accept a TE's argument that, while we interepret the beginning to Genesis allegorically, we can all learn the same lessons from Genesis.

For the record (as I stated in another post on this thread) the language of Genesis chapter one is of a literal nature (I.e., a literal 24-hour day, God's speaking into existence the various aspects of creation, etc.) and cannot be read in a figurative manner, by the rules of interpretation established by centuries of translators.

There are many source-critics who are highly educated in biblical interpretation who would disagree with you. Rev. Christopher Smith and Dr. Denis Lamoureux come to mind. Check out some of their works.

Now, if you wish to continue the discussion, I'd appreciate your respectful approach, rather than an instant attack, such as the one with which your post here.

Consider it "self-defense" in response to your allegation that I "ignore God's word."

 

[IisJustMe]

[/font][/color]Consider it "self-defense" in response to your allegation that I "ignore God's word."

Self-edited: You're absolutely right ... I used that phrase and didn't even realize it. My apologies. See, we can all learn something from one another here, if we will engage in dialogue instead of warfare. I've edited the original post to reflect what I truly believe, which is that non-YEC'ists give more weight to the arguable scientific evidence than to the Word of God.

What my request for an explanation entails is a statement as to how you arrive at your conclusions. Anyone can look at the science and reach different conclusions. Scientists do that every day, and some of them have to be wrong. Facts don't allow for different conclusions, only wrong interpretations.

But as Christians, we cannot, or at least, should not, look at only the science, but also at the Scripture. In fact, it should be our final authority. That's the purpose of this post. And the "common ground" I seek is an understanding that all of us are Christians, and we need to stop fileting each other on threads like this.

 

[Mallon]

I don't recall making that allegation. Seems to me that was your reply to me that made that statement.

Was it?

What I see OEC'ists, TE'ists, and others doing, is ignoring God's word.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Please don't make the obvious error of thinking David wrote of the Sun circling the earth. The relationship of the Sun to the the Earth is not the subject of vv. 5, 6. The relationship of God to His creation is the subject matter of this entire Psalm.

While I agree that Psalm 19 isn't mainly about the sun, David did write of the sun circling the earth. The psalm later describes how God's law is more desirable than gold or honey; the presence of figurative imagery doesn't negate the claim that God's law is desirable, but rather strengthens it. Similarly, when the psalm describes how the sun moves like a bridegroom or an athlete, the figurative imagery is no excuse to ignore the claim that the sun moves. In both cases the figurative imagery is being used to describe something (the desirability of the law and the purposeful movement of the sun), and the claim is no less sure for being made through poetry.

The trouble comes when one tries to use Scripture to make a point it wasn't intended to make. David wrote this psalm from his perspective, and God did not reveal to him the actual relationship between the sun and the earth, nor was it necessary for him to do so. God's providence and glory is revealed in creation regardless of whether the sun moves in its circuit as David wrote or the earth moves around the sun. As you said, it is missing the point to focus on what David says about the sun's movement instead of what he says about God.

From a TE perspective, I could also ask you not to make the error of thinking Genesis 1 is giving a timetable of creation. A chronology of creation may be mentioned, just as David mentions the movement of the sun, but this is not the main point of the account. Rather, it is about the relationship of God to his creation and particularly humanity, his sovereign and orderly creation work, and the timetable of the human work week and Sabbath.

 

[IisJustMe]

Again, you were right, I was wrong. Now, back to the discussion.

I forgot to make the key argument for why the Hebrew of chapter one in Genesis must be seen in a literal light. The division of the days of the creation are always explained by `ereb (evening) and boqer (morning), followed by the number for the day -- "one", "a second", "a third", etc. These two Hebrew (except for three uses of boqer in a figurative context related to a recovery from sorrow or grief -- e.g., For His anger is but for a moment, His favor is for a lifetime; Weeping may last for the night, But a shout of joy comes in the morning. -- Psalm 30:5) are always speaking of a literal division of an actual day.

Further, throughout the Old Testament, in the original Hebrew, whenever a number is applied to the word yowm (day) it always means a literal day, without exception. So, while there may be Hebrew scholars who would argue that the use of yowm can mean a day-age in that signle chapter, they never apply the (broken) vocabulary rule they use to arrive at that conclusion to any other similar biblical verse.

 

[Willtor]

... not a condemning statement of any kind. If you took as judgment, I'm sorry. It was not intended that way at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it my view is that the main reason TE'ists and OEC'ists and other non-YEC'ists seek other explanations than a literal, six-day creation some 10,000 years ago is that they don't think God would function that way. Since it is the most economical use of time and resources (and we've never seen God wasteful or capricious) my question is, why wouldn't He work that way?

Because God does not always use the most economical means to achieve His ends. Certainly, we can agree that if God wanted to create the world instantaneously that would be the most economical, right? But that's not what the Genesis account records. This has been a point of contention in the Church for centuries. Why does the Genesis account record God not using the most efficient means? The short answer is that this is not the way God works. Efficiency is not God's primary value.

 

[IisJustMe]

While I agree that Psalm 19 isn't mainly about the sun, David did write of the sun circling the earth.

I didn't go into great detail in my statement regarding the context of vv. 5 & 6 because I didn't want to distract completely from the thread -- and probably managed to do so anyway by calling attention to the usual disparaging comments regarding those verses. David was actually anticipating (since he uses the term "bridegroom") the coming of Christ for His bride. Hence, the note, "God's relationship to His creation ... " which is, ultimately, to set it aright and rescue it from man's sin.

The psalm later describes how God's law is more desirable than gold or honey; the presence of figurative imagery doesn't negate the claim that God's law is desirable, but rather strengthens it. Similarly, when the psalm describes how the sun moves like a bridegroom or an athlete, the figurative imagery is no excuse to ignore the claim that the sun moves.

Do we not use terminology such as "When does the sun set?" or "What time is the sunrise?" or even, "The sun certainly has moved through the sky quickly this afternoon!" Does that mean we believe the sun moves? Of course not. Its a statement of perspective, not what we believe. The same could be arguably assumed about David.

In both cases the figurative imagery is being used to describe something (the desirability of the law and the purposeful movement of the sun), and the claim is no less sure for being made through poetry.

Amen, exactly what I was saying in so poor a fashion in my OP.

The trouble comes when one tries to use Scripture to make a point it wasn't intended to make. David wrote this psalm from his perspective, and God did not reveal to him the actual relationship between the sun and the earth, nor was it necessary for him to do so. God's providence and glory is revealed in creation regardless of whether the sun moves in its circuit as David wrote or the earth moves around the sun. As you said, it is missing the point to focus on what David says about the sun's movement instead of what he says about God.

Precisely, and why I erred in even bringing up the argument I anticipated in the first place. Thanks for stating that so clearly.

From a TE perspective, I could also ask you not to make the error of thinking Genesis 1 is giving a timetable of creation.

As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, I don't think we can escape a chronology, based on the sentence structure and context. I believe God very clearly stated these were literal days, and while arguments can be stated in opposition to that viewpoint, no serious Hebrew scholar can reach any other conclusion except that the passage is literal. To do so violates vocabulary laws in use for centuries, laws that are not similarly violated in non-creationist passages where the same structure exists.

A chronology of creation may be mentioned, just as David mentions the movement of the sun, but this is not the main point of the account. Rather, it is about the relationship of God to his creation and particularly humanity, his sovereign and orderly creation work, and the timetable of the human work week and Sabbath.

Again, I agree with the tone of your post completely. It is about His relationship with His creation, and believing YEC or TE has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it should not be a point of division among Christians as I see it being on this board. And thank you enormously for being the first to grasp that as my purpose here. God bless you!