Science and philosophy

[Critias]

Yes. Science is not a philosophy; saying that 6 day creation has been falsified according to all the evidence that we have, is not a belief. It's a statement of fact.

I beg to differ, science is philosophy. It is not completely philosophy, but it is in part.

Even if a billion year creation is a fact, if it is believed, it is also a belief.

So, again, you are incorrect to say that I am lying because I said scientists believe a six day creation is wrong.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I agree, stating that you don't believe this and that is overstated. Instead, provide us Biblical support that shows the Biblical authors wanted the reader to understand a billion year creation rather than a six day creation.

It is not the kind of thing you can do in a few lines.
the sections of both the OPC and PCA creation reports on framework interpretation are excellent:
http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html
http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

there are a few well written essays on it:
http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1c.html
http://www.asa3.org/gray/framework/frameworkOPC-SC.html

there is a major effort at ASA to bring pieces of the CED puzzle together at:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agetheology2.htm#fw
this is the sublink to framework, the rest of the page is displayed as well

i've tried to keep a running list of the books i've read and thought valuable at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...RX8/ref=cm_aya_av.lm_more/103-9449855-7357467

it's not an easy question because it is contrary to the modern common sense notion that Gen 1 is talking about modern scientific order and is primarily historical.

for instance, there is no time in Gen 1, only the Sabbath week. you do not learn when or in what order creation was accomplished. What it is talking about is: God did it, He provided kingdoms first then the rulers of the kingdoms, both kingdoms and kings are de-mythologized, that is they are not gods themselves but subservient to the word of God. that all is do in a framework of 7 days in order to establish the correctness of the Sabbath week. it is the Sabbath that is primary and why Genesis 1 can be described as the prologue of the Great King.

but again, it relies on a lot of open minded reading, especially for anyone soaked in the modern Gen controversy. Which goes to show how the literal, common sense, man in the pew, 19thC Scottish influenced hermeneutic has such a nature power over the modern mind. But it is a modern hermeneutic not a 2nd millenium BC one, which is precisely the point.

.....

 

[Critias]

Open Minded reading?

How about reading to understand what the author intended? I believe this is the best hermeneutical approach.

There is something to the framework theory, but it is more about that God created habitats for the animals before he put them where He wanted them. As well as the stars, vegetation and man.

This outlook does not declare a billion year creation, rather that God created environments for the creatures He created; He created heavens for the stars to shine in, etc.

The first century Christians would disagree with you on your assertion that a young earth is new belief. If you don't believe me, or don't want to take my word for it, let me know. I can provide you with various statements from all Church Fathers claiming the earth is young.