If the universe is <10,000 old....

[philadiddle]

The Bible makes no reference to how old the universe is, it does clearly state that the first man was Adam. That's Old and New Testament. As far as how I respond to atheists, for the most part, I simply point them to real issues.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Just out of curiosity, how long ago do you think man was created? I recall asking you in a thread a few months ago but I don't recall the answer. (This isn't really on topic but it's my thread, I'm just wondering)

 

[Jig]

Of course, one always withdraws when one can no longer hold up one's end of the conversation.

Seriously? Very Ad Hominem of you. I happen to be a very busy person. Look at my post history. This is literally the only thread I have posted on (or even visited) in the last couple months. I go to school full-time, work to provide for my family of four, and volunteer at my church.

I'll be generous and give you thirty more minutes of my life.

Doesn't answer the question. I also am philosophically committed to the truth of the Bible and believe it was written in normal human language which can be interpreted in light of its own historical setting and literary context. And that is why I DON'T use a historical-grammatical interpretation.

For example, I am aware that "normal human language" includes mytho-poetic stories and figurative symbols like comparing the creation of the world to the construction of a temple. I am aware that the historical setting of the authors of Genesis and the literary context of their work was not that of a modern reporter or journalist attempting an "objective record by an unbiased observer" of chronological facts. Rather it was committed to a theological viewpoint and set out its cosmology to support a strict monotheism in the face of surrounding polytheistic beliefs to which the people of Israel often succumbed.

So what does your answer have to do with supporting a historical-grammatical interpretation?

John MacArthur, in his Bible Handbook, lists four principals of a proper historical-grammatical interpretation.

Four principles should guide us as we interpret the Bible: literal, historical, grammatical, and synthesis.

1. The Literal Principle. Scripture should be understood in its literal, normal, and natural sense. While the Bible does contain figures of speech and symbols, they were intended to convey literal truth. In general, however, the Bible speaks in literal terms, and we must allow it to speak for itself.

2. The Historical Principle. This means that we interpret in its historical context. We must ask what the text meant to the people to whom it was first written. In this way we can develop a proper contextual understanding of the original intent of Scripture.

3. The Grammatical Principle. This requires that we understand the basic grammatical structure of each sentence in the original language. To whom do the pronouns refer? What is the tense of the main verb? You will find that when you ask some simple questions like those, the meaning of the text immediately becomes clearer.

4. The Synthesis Principle. This is what the Reformers called the analogia scriptura. It means that the Bible does not contradict itself. If we arrive at an interpretation of a passage that contradicts a truth taught elsewhere in the Scriptures, our interpretation cannot be correct. Scripture must be compared with Scripture to discover its full meaning.

John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Handbook (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), xxix.

Not true. My philosophical assumptions only require that the age of the universe be what the evidence suggests. If the evidence suggested a young-earth, my philosophical assumptions would require that the universe be young.

As a Christian - you are certainly not a strict dogmatic naturalist (you subscribe to other assumptions that include the possibility of supernatural events). I understand this.

However, you can't interpret the evidence using two contradictory philosophies at the same time. When you look at the evidence you must choose which set of assumptions you will use to interpret it with. Either it happened supernaturally or naturally. If you assume it happened purely naturally - then under this philosophical assumption of naturalism - it is required to interpret the evidence as heavily aged. This specific requirement of age is not necessary for the contrasting assumption of supernaturalism.

This is why there exists both young and old earth creationists, but no young and old earth naturalists.

Also, the evidence can only suggest what you tell it to suggest. It does not have a voice of it's own. You have yet to prove how evidence on it's own speaks intrinsically without the need of interpretation.

It is stronger than that. Your philosophical assumptions demand a historical-grammatical interpretation of the text of scripture and that interpretation requires that the universe be approximately 6,000 years old.

I should have been more clear. I was detailing the assumption of supernaturlism specifically. You are correct, however, that this assumption mixed with my methodology of literal interpretation requires a mature 10,000 year-old universe.

My point still stands firm. My foundational assumption of supernatualism does not require an old, heavily aged planet. Thus, from this perspective - the world neither "appears" old or young.

When I apply my other assumptions to my perspective, the universe "appears" mature without the necessity of age. The idea that the universe "appears" billions of years old to everyone regardless of philosophical assumptions is fallacious.

Have a nice day.

 

[Keachian]

As a Christian - you are certainly not a strict dogmatic naturalist (you subscribe to other assumptions that include the possibility of supernatural events). I understand this.

However, you can't interpret the evidence using two contradictory philosophies at the same time. When you look at the evidence you must choose which set of assumptions you will use to interpret it with. Either it happened supernaturally or naturally. If you assume it happened purely naturally - then under this philosophical assumption of naturalism - it is required to interpret the evidence as heavily aged. This specific requirement of age is not necessary for the contrasting assumption of supernaturalism.

This is why there exists both young and old earth creationists, but no young and old earth naturalists.

You seem to be operating under the idea that theists should ascribe to a supernatural vs natural explanation to the world, could I point out that this is epicureanism at its finest, I wouldn't take this line of reasoning. God doesn't just interject in miracles, God is a permanent fixture, feeding the birds, clothing the lilies, knitting together new life in the wombs of all creatures. There is no divide between what is natural and what is supernatural, all things which are natural proceed from God, there is nothing which does not find its beginning, middle nor end in him.

 

[Jig]

You seem to be operating under the idea that theists should ascribe to a supernatural vs natural explanation to the world, could I point out that this is epicureanism at its finest, I wouldn't take this line of reasoning. God doesn't just interject in miracles, God is a permanent fixture, feeding the birds, clothing the lilies, knitting together new life in the wombs of all creatures. There is no divide between what is natural and what is supernatural, all things which are natural proceed from God, there is nothing which does not find its beginning, middle nor end in him.

I just did some research on epicureanism. I'm confused on how you see my position as such. I fully agree that God is a permanent fixture in the universe. The division I point out between the natural and the supernatural is purely conceptual.

 

[Keachian]

I just did some research on epicureanism. I'm confused on how you see my position as such. I fully agree that God is a permanent fixture in the universe. The division I point out between the natural and the supernatural is purely conceptual.

Sorry then. I just jump at the use of those two words together, because to me they really do signify an attachment to a God who is out in a bubble and only interfering for "supernatural" acts. I have found a want in many talks with both Christians and atheists for a epicurean God, and in some ways I think this also feeds into dispensational exchatology, but that's not on topic. The whole idea I think is that people are genuinely uncomfortable with the idea of a theistic God these days.

 

[pjnlsn]

The fundamental question is: Where is the proof for any sort of godly being? Having created the universe, whatever that might entail, at any particular point in time?

Or the proof specifically for the universe being 10,000 years oid?

Or.....anything in between, really, on the continuum between proof and a complete lack of evidence.

Is there anything?

 

[gluadys]

The fundamental question is: Where is the proof for any sort of godly being? Having created the universe, whatever that might entail, at any particular point in time?

Or the proof specifically for the universe being 10,000 years oid?

Or.....anything in between, really, on the continuum between proof and a complete lack of evidence.

Is there anything?

Scientifically, there is not only a complete lack of evidence that the universe is 10,000 years old, but an abundance of evidence supporting an age of 13.7 billion years, with the solar system (including Earth) dating to 4.5 billion years.

Theologically, there is no reason I know of to treat the scriptural creation stories as any sort of scientific-historical treatise. That is imposing anachronistic ideas from modern times on ancient documents written from a quite different perspective.

 

[gluadys]

Seriously? Very Ad Hominem of you. I happen to be a very busy person. Look at my post history. This is literally the only thread I have posted on (or even visited) in the last couple months. I go to school full-time, work to provide for my family of four, and volunteer at my church.

So? We all have real lives and one of the benefits of a forum is that one does not have to respond immediately as in chat mode. Answer when you do have time.

John MacArthur, in his Bible Handbook, lists four principals of a proper historical-grammatical interpretation.

Four principles should guide us as we interpret the Bible: literal, historical, grammatical, and synthesis.

Does he explain why these are the principles that should guide us?

1. The Literal Principle. Scripture should be understood in its literal, normal, and natural sense. While the Bible does contain figures of speech and symbols, they were intended to convey literal truth. In general, however, the Bible speaks in literal terms, and we must allow it to speak for itself.

What backing does he give for asserting that in general the Bible speaks in literal terms? I agree we must allow the text to speak for itself, but many times that means recognizing that it is not speaking literally. Misinterpreting as literal something not so intended is just as much a misinterpretation as the opposite.

There is also an equivocation here between different meanings of "literal".
As a description of a text and its meaning "literal"=normal and natural sense.
But further along he speaks of "literal truth".

It confuses the issue to assume that "normal and natural" sense of words and sentences is also "literal truth". Even more so, if it is further assumed that "normal and natural sense" means "historically true and accurate".

I have no problem asserting that before one attempts any deeper reading of a text, one much first ascertain what it means given the normal and natural sense of the words. And further inquiry may serve to show that this meaning is also the essential core meaning of the text and it is pointless to look for symbolism where none is intended.

But that is a second step, since symbolic meanings often lurk beneath a normal and natural sense of the text. The fact that something makes sense literally is no guarantee that it is not symbolic.

2. The Historical Principle. This means that we interpret in its historical context. We must ask what the text meant to the people to whom it was first written. In this way we can develop a proper contextual understanding of the original intent of Scripture.

It seems to me that most self-proclaimed literalists mistake this principle. They don't interpret the text in its historical context so much as insist that the text literally interpreted IS history.

A genuine interpretation of a text in its historical context will look to the historical context not only to provide sense to words and images, but also to see how such texts were used in the culture at the time. That wasn't necessarily as history.

Consider the example of the parable of the Sower. It has both a literal and a symbolic meaning. The literal meaning makes good sense even when one is not let into the secret of the symbolic meaning. That is, if one remembers the historical context in which the mode of sowing is to broadcast seed on unplowed land. Without that context, it might puzzle a farmer who plows the land and seeds it with a drill. Why would one be so careless as to let good seed land on hard pathways or among rocks and weeds? So historical context gives us a sharper picture of the literal meaning. Yet that doesn't make the story history. It is not, even in its most literal sense, a story about one actual farmer sowing one particular field on one certain date.

When we look at the cultural context in which the creation stories were composed, we see that such stories were not presented as history, but as national myths about a people and its God/gods. Like the parable of the Sower, they have both literal and symbolic meanings. But attention to historical context tells us the symbolic meaning is the important meaning.

IOW historical context is not the same thing as the assertion that the text is about history.

3. The Grammatical Principle. This requires that we understand the basic grammatical structure of each sentence in the original language. To whom do the pronouns refer? What is the tense of the main verb? You will find that when you ask some simple questions like those, the meaning of the text immediately becomes clearer.

Duh! Obviously any close analysis of any text demands attention to the nuances of grammar. This is not unique to any one interpretation.

4. The Synthesis Principle. This is what the Reformers called the analogia scriptura. It means that the Bible does not contradict itself. If we arrive at an interpretation of a passage that contradicts a truth taught elsewhere in the Scriptures, our interpretation cannot be correct. Scripture must be compared with Scripture to discover its full meaning.

Again an unsupported assertion. Who says the Bible does not contradict itself? Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses contradicted God's provision for marriage by allowing divorce. Paul, in Galatians, contradicts the history of Acts concerning his dealings with the apostles and the Church in Jerusalem.
In Nehemiah and Ezra, marriages outside the house of Israel are condemned and people forced to put away foreign wives. Yet three (possibly four) foreign women feature in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus.

I have no idea why it should be expected that every biblical writer agreed with every other.


It seems to me there must be principles more fundamental than these that make these principles important to you when you interpret scripture. These explain the interpretive technique you use, but not why you use this technique.

As a Christian - you are certainly not a strict dogmatic naturalist (you subscribe to other assumptions that include the possibility of supernatural events). I understand this.

However, you can't interpret the evidence using two contradictory philosophies at the same time. When you look at the evidence you must choose which set of assumptions you will use to interpret it with. Either it happened supernaturally or naturally.

I don't think that is the issue at all. Let's grant that creation was a supernatural event. Get that red herring out of the way.

You have already agreed that nothing about the event being supernatural ties it to a specific point in time.

So, then, it makes sense to me to look to the created world itself to tell us how long it has been here. This has nothing to do with how it came to be. How it came to be could well be supernatural. But how long it has been here is something that we might be able to tell from observation of the created order itself.

So, when we find that in the created order light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum, and that tells us that it took billions of years for light to travel from some of the stars we observe, the natural conclusion is that they were created (possibly miraculously) several billion years ago.

Adopting a different date requires a modification of our observations and a satisfactory reason to do so.

If the reason is "the bible says so", then we must ask, "why do you claim the bible says so?"

Your response is: well, I interpret the bible by the historical-grammatical method.

Which brings us back to the root question:
Why do you interpret the bible by that method?

I should have been more clear. I was detailing the assumption of supernaturlism specifically. You are correct, however, that this assumption mixed with my methodology of literal interpretation requires a mature 10,000 year-old universe.

As I said, supernaturalism is not the issue. I don't know any Christian who denies a role for supernatural events. (Strangely a great many Christians who adopt the same interpretations you do seem to have much difficulty with a God who works via natural means--as if the only sign of God in action is a miracle.)

The issue isn't even the methodology of literal (historical-grammatical) interpretation.

It is the principle of using this mode of interpretation when it is not necessary theologically and seems contradictory to normal means of understanding evidence. The whole idea of historical-grammatical interpretation seems to introduce a whole swath of needless problems. So what makes it so important?

My point still stands firm. My foundational assumption of supernatualism does not require an old, heavily aged planet.

Nor does it demand a young but mature planet. Hence, your commitment to supernaturalism, in the context of this conversation, is a red herring--a distraction from what really does demand a young but mature planet: your commitment to a historical-grammatical interpretation.

So please keep focused on why you are committed to this interpretation.

I take it you agree that if you interpreted scripture differently, you would not conclude an age of 10,000 years for the planet.

What are the obstacles to interpreting the scripture on different principles?

 

[Assyrian]

Great post glaudys Bookmarked.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I agree, great post glaudys! I think the issue isn't so much the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, but how that method is often distorted or misunderstood. If those who advocated the method fully integrated the historical part of the method, they might see why many Christians read the early chapters of Genesis differently.

 

[Jig]

Great post glaudys Bookmarked.

You've got to be kidding me. Glaudys has not even remotely refuted my position.

 

[Assyrian]

You've got to be kidding me. Glaudys has not even remotely refuted my position.

You referred to John MacArthur's principals of a proper historical-grammatical interpretation, glaudys took it apart. Whether that refutes your position or not depends on whether your position is founded on this kind of literalism. If it is, then glaudys has shown your claims are built on sand. If not, and you now want to distance yourself from MacArthur, glaudys has still done a great job dealing with his historical-grammatical interpretation.

I look forward to reading your response to her.

 

[Jazer]

it does clearly state that the first man was Adam.

Adam was the first man and Eve was the first women. Before Adam and Eve you had male and female. There is a difference between a male and a man just like there is a difference between a female and a women. The song does not say "I feel like a female". The song says "I feel like a women". Eve was also the first wife. Adam was the first husband.

Gen 2:22 And the rib 6763, which the LORD 3068 God 430 had taken 3947 from man 120, made 1129 he a woman802, and brought 935 her unto the man 120.
Gen 2:23 And Adam 120 said 559 , This 2063 [is] now 6471 bone 6106 of my bones 6106, and flesh 1320 of my flesh 1320: she 2063 shall be called 7121 Woman802, because she 2063 was taken 3947 out of Man 376.
Gen 2:24 Therefore 3651 shall a man 376 leave 5800 his father 1 and his mother 517, and shall cleave 1692 unto his wife802: and they shall be one 259 flesh 1320.

 

[Jig]

Gap = compromise

 

[Assyrian]

Gap = compromise

Geocentrists think YEC = compromise for its acceptance of Copernicanism.

Copernicanism and Darwinism: Inseparable Concepts
The Christian Compromise with Copernicanism established the one and only criterion needed for the success of Satan's evolution myth in the world first, then the churches. The criterion? Again, quite simple. Plain Scripture can and must be reworked to match the claims of "science falsely so-called".
​

 

[Jig]

Geocentrists think YEC = compromise for its acceptance of Copernicanism.

And atheist's think theistic evolution = compromise for its acceptance of God.

 

[Assyrian]

And atheist's think theistic evolution = compromise for its acceptance of God.

That is atheists, I was talking about Christians.

If you as a Christian want to condemn the Gap view of an other Christian as compromised, because it disagrees with your own interpretation of the bible, you need to realise that there are other Christians, geocentrists, who consider your views as a compromise with Copernican science, while the geocentrists were condemned by flat earther Cosmas Indicopleustes as 'serving two masters' for accepting the Greek philosophy of a spherical earth.

If you want to condemn believers for compromise because of the science they accept and reconcile with scripture, then how are you not condemned yourself for the sciences you accept? How are you different from the geocentrists and flat earthers who condemn you?

 

[Djboo]

Hi Phil,

I get what you're trying to do. You want to explain to an athiest that the universe had a beginning in such a way that he will be amazed by the works of our GOD. You'll use this to bridge the good news to him.

I truly believe that God is the Alpha and the Omega and we are just humans incapable of understanding everything.

 

[Calminian]

That is atheists, I was talking about Christians.

If you as a Christian want to condemn the Gap view of an other Christian as compromised, because it disagrees with your own interpretation of the bible, you need to realise that there are other Christians, geocentrists, who consider your views as a compromise with Copernican science, while the geocentrists were condemned by flat earther Cosmas Indicopleustes as 'serving two masters' for accepting the Greek philosophy of a spherical earth.

If you want to condemn believers for compromise because of the science they accept and reconcile with scripture, then how are you not condemned yourself for the sciences you accept? How are you different from the geocentrists and flat earthers who condemn you?

But the whole point of theistic evolution is show that the bible and christianity acceptable and compatible with mainstream scientific modern thinking. Isn't that the case?

Yes, of course, no matter where you are, there will be criticism. But the TE compromise is about evangelism, isn't it? Problem is, atheists can read scripture, and know exactly what you're doing. They know and understand the hermeneutical somersaults that are being performed and I don't think they're buying it.

In fact, I think they realize that the interpretive techniques you're employing could be used with any religious book to verify its truth and compatibility with reality.

YEC's, OTOH, aren't holding their views to entice Geocentrists to consider christianity. That's assuming there are geocentrists out there. Frankly, I think most of the websites are practical jokes. But even if there are some believers still here and there, YEC are not attempting to make the bible acceptable to them. We're just looking at the text, allowing it to say what it says. And ironically, the world is much easier to understand, and much more logical, when we look at it through the lenses of scripture.

 

[miamited]

hi cal,

Nicely put!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted