Why I feel the observational data requires a Biblical reinterpretation

[versastyle]

Oh boy .. It's time for me to bow out of this particular exchange. It's heading the wrong way.

I think you should back up of your claims that the apostles taught irrelevant subjects and claimed them to be the word of God.

 

[California Tim]

I think you should back up of your claims that the apostles taught irrelevant subjects, and thus claim them to be the word of God.

I'll give you a hint. I already provided one example a few posts ago - concerning Paul's position on how to treat the days of the week.

 

[versastyle]

I'll give you a hint. I already provided one example a few posts ago - concerning Paul's position on how to treat the days of the week.

I do not see how Paul says to actively push your opinion of irrelevant issues onto others.

In fact it seems Paul is making the same point as I. He's saying let God guide you in these matters, but he does not assume that this knowledge is important to spread to others or judge people with.

It seems you have a captured and misused a verse out of contexr.

 

[California Tim]

I do not see how Paul says to actively push your opinion of irrelevant issues onto others.

In fact it seems Paul is making the same point as I. He's saying let God guide you in these matters, but he does not assume that this knowledge is important to spread to others or judge people with.

It seems you have a captured and misused a verse out of contexr.

Like I said, it seems apparent we've started off on the wrong foot. I am not here not to present to you an essential doctrine in the creation account, but to simply engage in the debate of two opposing points of view within the faith. I personally find the process enjoyable, the fellowship exciting and the motivation to study the Word even more rewarding. If you feel this is too divisive, I must apologize since that is not my intent, and I've tried my best to convey that numerous times here. A quick review of my post history will hopefully demonstrate a sincere effort to remain on topic and off the personal attacks. If you see otherwise, I deserve rebuke.

 

[versastyle]

Like I said, it seems apparent we've started off on the wrong foot. I am not here not to present to you an essential doctrine in the creation account, but to simply engage in the debate of two opposing points of view within the faith. I personally find the process enjoyable, the fellowship exciting and the motivation to study the Word even more rewarding. If you feel this is too divisive, I must apologize since that is not my intent, and I've tried my best to convey that numerous times here. A quick review of my post history will hopefully demonstrate a sincere effort to remain on topic and off the personal attacks. If you see otherwise, I deserve rebuke.

This is how I have read into what you have said on this forum. I have seen you questioning the motives of others, and you have doubted their abilities in following God's word because they do not follow your line of thinking. This is where I see the problem.

Maybe I've misunderstood you as well.

 

[Vance]

Sure, I agree a person can hold the wrong view on a non-essential and still be right about salvation. One person can be a vegetarian, another an omnivore and both can be saved. But if either the vegetarian or the omnivore builds a doctrine around the one issue, it could very well indicate a potential problem with the person's relationship with Christ and acceptance of scripture as authoritative and reliable.

I agree that developing a doctrine around the issue of origins is where the problem lies. And this is exactly what most Creationists do and what TE's do not do. Creationists tend to develop a doctrine that if their literal/historical interpretation is not correct, then other Scriptures must be unreliable or untrustworthy. Thus, they elevate their interpretation of historic literalism to a doctrine that would effect the validity of rest of Scripture. This is very dangerous since people raised in this environment will approach the issue of origins in an "either/or" mindset. I do not need to tell you how dangerous this can be. More importantly, it is an unecessary danger.

TE's don't face this problem because they can fully accept the authority and validity of Scripture whether literal or not. So, in reality, there is less of a danger of failing to accept Scriptural teaching.

I won't go into exact comparisons, but I suspect a large number of self-professed Christians who might not actually be saved would also adopt a creation account that limits God's participation. I do not insinuate that such belief in and of itself precludes salvation, but if it is based on the rejection of the innerancy of the Bible, then we may have a problem.

Well, first of all, I think your bias is showing through if you think that someone with a different view regarding Scripture might be more likely to not really be saved. But there are a couple of misconceptions that you are continuing to hang on to. Even if you don't accept TE, you should at least by now understand what we are saying. First, we don't in any way limit God's participation. God created all of it, everything. Would you say that God was less involved because He used dirt to create Adam and accomplished His Creation over six days than if He had just popped it all into existence instantaneously? We both believe God used a process and that He did it over a period of time, we just have different ideas about the process and the amount of time. Would you say that God is less in control of His creation because photosynthesis happens as a natural process rather than direct Divine intervention in every cellular event?

Second, there are some Christians who do not believe the Bible is inerrant at all. Most TE's on this board do believe the Bible is inerrant, as do I. I am not sure whether a belief in inerrancy would effect someone's salvation if they still believe what the Scripture says and accept Jesus as their Savior. Regardless, this is not a TE issue, but a matter of general diversity within the Church Body. There have been Christians who didn't accept inerrancy throughout the history of the Church, and it had nothing at all to do with their belief about origins. So, the two are not connected.

In your case, and mine, we differ on the interpretation, but neither denies the authority of what is written - so it's a different animal altogether from that which is referred to in your quote. I am not questioning your salvation, just your basis for interpretation of the creation account.

No, I was not referring to you. But there are many Creationists who use this as a primary argument. "if you don't accept the literal reading of Genesis 1, then how can you accept the Bible for anything?! How can you accept the resurrection?" They believe that a different interpretation than theirs will necessarily lead to disbelief in other areas of Scripture. This has been proven a false dichotomy, as I said.

 

[California Tim]

TE's don't face this problem because they can fully accept the authority and validity of Scripture whether literal or not. So, in reality, there is less of a danger of failing to accept Scriptural teaching.

Whenever a passage is altered, whether it be a literal account misrepresented as a figurative one or figurative as literal, there is a very real danger of becoming susceptible to following false doctrines. Indeed you demonstrate the very same concern that those who disagree with your interpretation are setting a dangerous precedent. I think it is obvious that we can agree that we disagree on the creation account. We can also clearly declare our concern for those who disagree with us since each of us feels the opposing view represents error. Naturally such a conclusion would call into question the opponents bias in scriptural interpetation on other issues and clearly this is NOT a trait the only YEC'ists have cornered the market on. Let me quote you as an example:

Creationists tend to develop a doctrine that if their literal/historical interpretation is not correct, then other Scriptures must be unreliable or untrustworthy. Thus, they elevate their interpretation of historic literalism to a doctrine that would effect the validity of rest of Scripture.

So we both feel the opposing view carries inherrent dangers when elevated to the status of doctrine when in fact it is not. Furthermore, one cannot even begin to question the opposing view unless convinced themselves of holding the "true interpretation". Personally I would like to stick to the issues and get past this particular quagmire of circular argument of worrying whether one or the other of us is questioning motive. We both question the other insofar as correct interpretation is concerned. Like it or or love it, it's the basis for all debate. "Test the spirits" is not a suggestion but an exhortation for all Christians. I expect you to question my bias, and would love just once to let this issue float to the surface and accept it as fact that everyone does to one extent or another when debating. I take no offense when there is implication I am in error or unsound doctrinally - even though I disagree, it is to be expected. I say let's accept that fact, and present our opinions.

 

[Vance]

The only thing I would disagree with is that TE's find a different interpretation of Genesis itself dangerous. I see no danger whatsoever in someone believing in a literal, historical interpretation of any scripture. The danger does not lie in the difference in interpretation.

The danger lies in the additional teaching that this literal/historical interpretation must be correct and so (here is the dangerous part) if evolution is true or if the earth is old, then Scripture can not be trusted. This is raising from an interpretation issue to a matter of doctrine.

 

[grmorton]

I addressed this issue in my thread titled "When secular science and the Bible disagree..." where I asked this very question - "which takes precedence?" If the Bible is to be reevaluated by the "evidence" secular science presents regarding evolution and age of the Earth, then it is ALL open to interpretation by the same standard. In that case one may as well dismiss the account of Christ feeding the 5000 as physically impossible - a fairy tale with nice morals. The plagues of Egypt can now all be explained by natural phenomenon- no need for Moses to claim God's power. Manna from heaven, parting the Red Sea, Sun standing still, walls of Jerhico falling down by trumpets, the Virgin Birth, resurrection of the dead, restoration of lost sight, walking on water, and of course the ever popular discounted miracles of the flood and Jonah - all may be dismissed by the authority of natural law. Personally, I feel when the two disagree, it's the evidence that must be scrutinized in light of Biblical truth.

No, you don't have to give up miracles. We call them miracles and that then places them outside of scientific verification. Your argument is highly flawed and ignores this basic point.

The YEC account correctly predicted the gaps in the fossil record,

Oh, reaaaallllly? CAn you cite the author and paper where this prediction was made? I would be really curious. I know who first noted the gaps. Do you?

the Mississippi river delta also attests to a young earth.

No it doesn't. This is from my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htm

****
How long the continents have to go before they are peneplaned is irrelevant to how long they have been eroding. We will calculate how long it would take for the sediments eroding off of the to account for the amount of sediment seen in the Gulf of Mexico. I will say that the amount of sediment in the Gulf is truly astounding. I was manager of geophysics for the Gulf of Mexico for 9 years. I have seen gravity data which shows that along the Louisiana coastline there are 75,000 feet of sedimentary rocks. In the calculation below, I will use only about half that value as the average. I have seen seismic data which shows about 50,000 feet of sedimentary rock 200 miles offshore. So the numbers I am using are conservative for the Gulf. Yet creationists, ignorant of geology have actually claimed incredibly small numbers for the deltas. George McCready Price, the man who heavily influenced Henry Morris, stated:
"The actual depth or thickness of the deposits formed by modern deltas varies greatly, but is generally not very great. 'The mud of the Nile delta is not over 10 or 15 meters thick.' some of the deltas in Europe seem to be thicker than this, and that of the Ganges is about 20 meters. 'The actual delta deposits of the Mississippi range from 9.5 to 16 meters near New Orleans, increasing to 30 meters at the head of the passes, beyond which the thickness rapidly increases." ~ George McCready Price, The New Geology, (Mountain View: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1923), p. 147

Nothing could be further from the truth as we will see.



Two hundred million years ago the mouth of the Mississippi river was at Cairo Illinois, not at New Orleans, Louisiana. The Mississippi and other rivers had to fill in a huge amount of sediment which is now under dry land from Cairo Illinois down to New Orleans.

There are 1,588,604,000,000 sq. meters in the Gulf of Mexico. From seismic data and
gravity data, I know that there is an average of 15,200 meters of sediment over this
region. We have actually drilled through about 10,000 meters of sediment so that is
indisputable. Now, 1,588,604,000,000 x 15200 = 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters.
The Mississippi River carries about 210 x 10^6 tons per year. [see Scott M. Mclennan
"Weathering and Global Denudation", Journal of Geology , 101:2, p. 296)

That works out to be 210 x 10^9 kg per year. There are 2400 kg per cubic meter, so
dividing we have 210 x 10^9 kg per year / 2400 kg per cm = 87,500,000 cubic meters
per year. A good assumption is that the other rivers emptying into the Gulf probably
are equivalent to another Mississippi River. Thus we will assume that 175,000,000 cubic
meters per year are deposited.

Dividing this into the volume of the Gulf sediments we find 24,146,780,800,000,000
cubic meters/175,000,000 cubic meters per year = 137,981,604 years. That is 137 million
years for the river to fill up the Gulf of Mexico.

Now, lets do something NO YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST EVER DOES WITH THE EROSION ARGUMENT.
Lets put all this sediment back on the Continent. The Mississippi River has a drainage
area of 3.27 million square kilometers or 3,270,000,000,000 square meters. Assuming
half of the sediment came from the eroded Mississippi drainage area we find that
12,073,390,400,000,000 cubic meters must be put back on the continent. Thus the
continents were, 12,073,390,400,000,000 cubic meters / 3,270,000,000,000 square meters =
3692 meters higher before the Gulf was filled in. That means that about two miles of
sediment has been eroded off the continents. Does that mean that the continents were
3692 meters higher above sea level back then? NO. The continents sink into the mantle
of the earth if you add weight to them. The ratio is about a third of the extra height
of sediment is the amount the sediment sinks. Thus if you add 3692 m of sediment the
continents sink about 1200 m, leaving the continent only about 2400 meters higher. Thus
one can't say that this much sediment is too much.

 

[gluadys]

That was the gist of my point and I appreciate you having agreed with it. That also happens to be my take on the literal 6 days of creation - in spite of the so-called evidence that suggests it was physically impossible.

But you miss the point too.

There is no evidence contradicting the resurrection or other miracles.

There is a lot of evidence contradicting a young earth and a six-day creation.

In the first case we can believe the miracle or not, there is no evidence one way or the other. As Christians we believe the miracle of the resurrection.

But in the second case, to accept the literal 6 day creation in the recent past, one not only has to accept that miracles happen, but that this miracle was accompanied by the deliberate creation of physical evidence which contradicts it.

I can believe a miracle. I can't accept that God would have any motive for giving us a miracle of creation and also give us evidence the miracle could not happen.

 

[Vance]

You know, if the evidence in favor of a young earth was 50/50, that would be different. But honestly, my review of the evidence in some detail has convinced me that the likelihood that the earth could really be less than 10,000 years old is less than 1%. It really is that dramatic.

To a non-Christian who knows the evidence, telling them that the Bible says the earth is less than 10,000 years old will have the same negative effect as telling him that that the Bible says conclusively that the earth is fixed and not rotating and that the sun and stars revolve around it in an orbit. I am not kidding in the least. He is equally positive that both are simply not true, and telling him that the Bible says it is true will basically convince him that the Bible can't be believed, then. How can he accept the salvation message when he has just been convinced that Scripture is false? TE's, on the other hand, show him that Scripture is true, and reliable and trustworthy, even if the earth is old and evolution is correct. "No problem, now here is the Gospel message . . ."

So, any YEC out there preaching it from the mountaintops better be pretty darned sure he has it right, because if not he may have a LOT of souls to answer for.

If a person believes in YEC, fine. I would not try to convince them otherwise. But consider the damage caused if that message is preached as dogmatic doctrine and it is wrong. Immense. If TE turns out to be wrong, on the other hand, little or no harm done. All we are doing is showing people how they can believe in both without any problems. "Something to consider, another viewpoint, what I happen to believe, check it out for yourself, it is not a salvation issue, the Bible is still reliable and trustworthy regardless." This can only add people to the Kingdom and can not push any away.

It just seems like YEC'ism is simply too dangerous a position to teach as dogmatic doctrine, when the downside is so huge. And there really is very little upside since you can reach people with the Gospel and grow them as Christians without YEC'ism ever being mentioned.

Now, I would never advocate teaching something you don't believe just because it will win souls, that would be the worst witness imaginable. But if you happend to be YEC, all I ask is that you don't preach it dogmatically, as an 'either/or' proposition, in which the Scripture is completely inconsistent with what they believe about origins (or may come to believe later). All I ask is that it be taught as a non-esential, non-salvation issue, and something that honest, Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians differ on.

That is not asking too much, is it?

 

[1denomination]

Excellent post vance

If a person believes in YEC, fine. I would not try to convince them otherwise. But consider the damage caused if that message is preached as dogmatic doctrine and it is wrong. Immense. If TE turns out to be wrong, on the other hand, little or no harm done. All we are doing is showing people how they can believe in both without any problems. "Something to consider, another viewpoint, what I happen to believe, check it out for yourself, it is not a salvation issue, the Bible is still reliable and trustworthy regardless." This can only add people to the Kingdom and can not push any away.

It just seems like YEC'ism is simply too dangerous a position to teach as dogmatic doctrine, when the downside is so huge. And there really is very little upside since you can reach people with the Gospel and grow them as Christians without YEC'ism ever being mentioned.

Now, I would never advocate teaching something you don't believe just because it will win souls, that would be the worst witness imaginable. But if you happend to be YEC, all I ask is that you don't preach it dogmatically, as an 'either/or' proposition, in which the Scripture is completely inconsistent with what they believe about origins (or may come to believe later). All I ask is that it be taught as a non-esential, non-salvation issue, and something that honest, Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians differ on.

That is not asking too much, is it?

I couldnt have said it better myself. God bless

 

[Vance]

It is very gratifying to hear a Young Earth Creationist agree with this approach. Thanks!

 

[California Tim]

You know, if the evidence in favor of a young earth was 50/50, that would be different. But honestly, my review of the evidence in some detail has convinced me that the likelihood that the earth could really be less than 10,000 years old is less than 1%. It really is that dramatic.

I have no doubt that using the tabulation methods of secular science that ALL the evidence supports an old earth. It could not help but do that since the earth is presupposed old and the dating methods calibrated accordingly. I know we could go round and round on one example after another, but let me use this one for now.

Take the Grand Canyon for example: Most scientists will contend it was formed over a very long period of time, steadily and consistently (at a constant rate). To anyone who accepts this notion, it makes sense in light of the theory that the age of the earth is supposedly billions of years. On the other hand, I've personally seen, and we have all been privy (thanks to the weather channel) to witnessing incredible erosion in desert areas from a single cloudburst. So to a young earther, the Grand Canyon represents proof of the scarring resulting from the receeding Biblical flood. Frankly, in that light, it makes perfect sense.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. A literal flood as depicted in the Bible, or lack thereof is the cornerstone of both arguments. IF it happened (and I believe it did) then all the time time tables used to date the strata must be dramatically recalibrated. IF it did not happen on a global scale, then YEC'ism is in trouble.

 

[Vance]

Ah, but that is just it, the Grand Canyon is, indeed, a perfect example. It is not the type of canyon that could have resulted from a catostrophic event. I will let Glenn explain why this is in more detail, since he can do a better job.

But, really, your concept of the presumptions is incorrect. Scientists do not think that the Grand Canyon was caused over millions of years because of a presupposition that the earth is old. Instead, it was phenomenon like the Grand Canyon that convinced geologists 200 years ago (and Christian geologists at that) that the earth WAS that old. You can see lots of information on this in the other forum.

While it is convenient to think that it is just a matter of perspective and inherent presumptions, this really is not the case. It is a matter of the evidence driving the conclusion in science. Really. They don't say, "ah, the earth is old, so this must be what happened." Instead, it has been "ah, this is what we see, so the earth must be old." Look at Christian scientists like Glenn Morton who started with every presumption that the earth was young, but eventually realized that the evidence just didn't support it, or a global flood, but instead pointed to exactly what the general scientific community was saying.

 

[California Tim]

Really. They don't say, "ah, the earth is old, so this must be what happened

How are the different strata layer dated?

 

[Vance]

They are not just dated, they are counted. Those layers could not be laid down by a catostrophic event. So, the dating is not even really the issue. But, yes, they can also date them by various radiometric dating techniques, which are very sound, despite what AiG and ICR would have you believe.

I know you have little trust in TO, but just so that you can see the parameters of the debate, here is their response to ICR's Grand Canyon dating project:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

I simply find the explanation there dramatically more convincing. Also, there have been a couple of detailed threads on the process of canyon formation in the other forum. I will see if I can get them.

 

[versastyle]

How are the different strata layer dated?

They take a multitude of samples of rocks then date them. They throw out the dates that are incosistent with the rest of the dates.

They might get figures of:

2.7 MY
2 MY
17 MY
1.4 MY
150,000 Y
3.1 MY
5 MY
4 MY
1.8 MY

Then they create a range of dates from 1.4 MY o 5 MY. You will never find an older strata with a human embedded in it, or a younger strata with a dinosaur in it. Coincidence? Yeah if you are a YEC. No if you understand statistics.

 

[Vance]

Also, they have found that the range of possible dates for each layer shifts older as the go lower. Another coincidence?

Also, they have found in many places that they can track major events that create layers in different locations, and that they test with basically the same date range. Coincidence again.

Then there are those varves. I just can't see a way around the varves. Here you have annual double layers of sediments at the bottom of a certain type of glacial lake. They observe how it happens as we speak, and has happened for the hundred or so years that they have observed them. As the snowmelt from the glacier comes down into the lake in the spring, the heavy sediment settles on the bottom, and the lighter sediment floats down on top of it. Two layers for every year. They can simply count the double layers at the bottom of these lakes to see how long this has been happening at that location (usually since the last ice age). Even a simple scientist can count up to 15,000 or more.

The Green River varves are even more dramatic, if less absolute, since they can happen more often than once a year. But there are simply SO MANY layers that for it all to fit within a YEC timeframe, there would have be new layers laid down at a dizzying rate, much faster than is possible by any explanation. A global flood sure couldn't do it.

 

[gluadys]

I have no doubt that using the tabulation methods of secular science that ALL the evidence supports an old earth. It could not help but do that since the earth is presupposed old and the dating methods calibrated accordingly. I know we could go round and round on one example after another, but let me use this one for now.

No, the dating methods are calibrated first, before they are used to date something. No point using a dating method if you don't know what the results mean before you use it.

Take the Grand Canyon for example: Most scientists will contend it was formed over a very long period of time, steadily and consistently (at a constant rate). To anyone who accepts this notion, it makes sense in light of the theory that the age of the earth is supposedly billions of years. On the other hand, I've personally seen, and we have all been privy (thanks to the weather channel) to witnessing incredible erosion in desert areas from a single cloudburst. So to a young earther, the Grand Canyon represents proof of the scarring resulting from the receeding Biblical flood. Frankly, in that light, it makes perfect sense.

What makes you think geologists have never seen rapid erosion and have not taken that possibility into account? It also begs the question of where the sediments came from in the first place. They have to be there first before the erosion begins. Even if the erosion is rapid, it still takes time to build up the sediments first.