Young Earth Six Day Creationism: The Scandal of the LCMS

[WirSindBettler]

Let me be clear, as I feel I have not conveyed my feelings properly. If you are an LCMS member who is not a rostered Pastor or teacher, but simply a lay-person, then you can believe whatever you want. However, to insinuate that the Synod needs to change to a more liberal interpretation of Scripture is wrong. The fact that Becker is an ordained Pastor and spews such teachings is wrong.

I for one, however, am not worried about the future of the Synod, as for every evolutionary-proponent there are a hundred more Biblicists who believe in YEC. But if this does become a point of contention and the LCMS chooses to abandon Scripture, then it is my duty as a Confessional Lutheran and as a steadfast Christian to leave the Synod.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Again, the issues of female and homosexual ordination are not the root issues with the ELCA, but rather with their interpretation of Scripture. The Genesis creation, when read in context, is clear that the Earth was created in six 24 hour days.

No, it really isn't, especially when you pay attention to context and literary form. It's clearly set in a number of stanzas. The realms created in days one through three parallel the rulers of those realms created in days four through six, all of which leads up to the unparalleled realm that is the seventh day itself, with its unparalleled ruler, God himself, into which humans are commissioned to lead creation. Like many poetic forms (think of the Shakespearean sonnet), it uses irregularity in the final textual unit to create literary epiphany. It doing so it emphasizes monotheism, order, and Sabbath, all themes that actually mattered to ancient Israel, as opposed to the physical creation of the cosmos, which it didn't.

The Synod has affirmed this repeatedly as fundamental to the faith.

And it's chief theologian, Franz Pieper, affirmed a geocentric solar system as central to Christian cosmology as recently as 1923, and those books are still assigned at Concordia Seminary. While neither the writings of that theologian, nor even the fact that that theologian is assigned as the principle text for Systematics I-IV at Concordia, are quite as binding as synodical proclamations, they nevertheless demonstrate that synodical authorities can and have made mistakes.

Moreover, and I can't stress this enough: I'm not bound to every proclamation of the synod. I'm bound to the Scriptures and to the Confessions. And guess what isn't in the Confessions?

If you don't agree with the Synod, then what's the point of staying in it, when you could be surrounded by people with the same interpretations as yourself?

No, I couldn't. I really, really couldn't. The LCMS is the best possible option when it comes to most issues. The fact that I disagree on one issue doesn't mean I should go to the ELCA, where I disagree on at least three. And yet synodical policy is to send pastors and teachers into exile in the ELCA when they disagree with anything, even though they will just as vehemently contend that ELCA congregants should become LCMS because they aren't properly being fed law and gospel in the ELCA.

 

[WirSindBettler]

No, it really isn't, especially when you pay attention to context and literary form. It's clearly set in a number of stanzas. The realms created in days one through three parallel the rulers of those realms created in days four through six, all of which leads up to the unparalleled realm that is the seventh day itself, with its unparalleled ruler, God himself, into which humans are commissioned to lead creation. Like many poetic forms (think of the Shakespearean sonnet), it uses irregularity in the final textual unit to create literary epiphany. It doing so it emphasizes monotheism, order, and Sabbath, all themes that actually mattered to ancient Israel, as opposed to the physical creation of the cosmos, which it didn't.

Looks like a Historical-Critical interpretation to me!

And it's chief theologian, Franz Pieper, affirmed a geocentric solar system as central to Christian cosmology as recently as 1923, and those books are still assigned at Concordia Seminary.

Go on . . .

While neither the writings of that theologian, nor even the fact that that theologian is assigned as the principle text for Systematics I-IV at Concordia, are quite as binding as synodical proclamations,

Bingo!

they nevertheless demonstrate that synodical authorities can and have made mistakes.

This is true. But this has nothing to do with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Moreover, and I can't stress this enough: I'm not bound to every proclamation of the synod. I'm bound to the Scriptures and to the Confessions. And guess what isn't in the Confessions?

And guess what is in the Scriptures?

No, I couldn't. I really, really couldn't. The LCMS is the best possible option when it comes to most issues. The fact that I disagree on one issue doesn't mean I should go to the ELCA, where I disagree on at least three. And yet synodical policy is to send pastors and teachers into exile in the ELCA when they disagree with anything, even though they will just as vehemently contend that ELCA congregants should become LCMS because they aren't properly being fed law and gospel in the ELCA.

It's a pretty big issue to disagree on. Pretty big issue.

Again, you haven't responded to my Scriptural thesis that Adam brought death into the world.

 

[KEPLER]

Ed, I am on the way to a hospital visit 70 miles away, so don’t have time for full reply.

But, don’t be fooled into thinking your response is sufficient. YOM (יו&#1502, when joined ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, etc.), is always 24 hour period in the entire OT. So, if you want it to be something other than 24 hour period, then this text in Genesis would have to be an exception, and there is nothing in the text to make it an exception. This coincides with Exodus 20 and the giving of the commandments.

If not, then Yom can refer to an indefinite (but fixed) time.

Peace, brother, it's been a long time.

Just a thought, Rich... The Greater and lesser lights of the 4th day of creation were given specifically for the measure of time. What was used to measure time on days 1 - 3? (IOW, until the 4th day, 'yom' has no specific definition.)

Again, just a thought. My intent is NEVER to defend evolution (antibiotics are defense enough, IMHO), but to let Scripture speak without the trappings of 7th Day Adventism, which underlies 99% of 'Creation Science.'

Cheers,

K

 

[KEPLER]

Again, the issues of female and homosexual ordination are not the root issues with the ELCA, but rather with their interpretation of Scripture. The Genesis creation, when read in context, is clear that the Earth was created in six 24 hour days.

This is the meat of the issue, isn't it? And Scripture most certainly does NOT 'say' this. I won't argue that it's not a possible legitimate reading. But it is most certainly not the ONLY legitimate and faithful reading. (I think GCC's description above, putting days 1-3 in parallel with days 4 -6, all being capped off by the sabbath, is the best reading of Genesis 1).

As I asked FILO, what does 'yom' mean prior to the creation of the greater and lesser lights on day 4? It absolutely CANNOT mean '24 hour day' since there was no sun by which to measure the hours.

Bear in mind, I am NOT arguing in FAVOR of evolution. I am arguing AGAINST the faithful painting themselves into a corner by needlessly relying on anti-Christian groups such as Answers in Genesis. Rome did this with Aristotle during the Council of Trent. We need to be wary of doing the same thing.

Cheers,

K

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Looks like a Historical-Critical interpretation to me!

It really, really isn't. Historical criticism is sifting the text in order to determine whether events that the narrative claims are historical are indeed historical. I'm saying that because of the form of the text I don't believe the text is making a historical claim. We do the exact same thing with Revelation and many other texts.

And guess what is in the Scriptures?

I've made an argument that it isn't, and you simply dismissed it. If I can hold to a doctrine of the fall in light of my own interpretation of Scripture, then what does it matter? We're not bound to have identical interpretations of individual passages of Scripture; we're bound to doctrinal unity. Is young earth six day creationism a doctrine in-and-of-itself? If so, why?

It's a pretty big issue to disagree on. Pretty big issue.

No, it's really not. As long as a person holds to a historic fall of a real historical Adam who really does mark the beginning of humanity's special relationship with God, then what bloody difference does it make?

Again, you haven't responded to my Scriptural thesis that Adam brought death into the world.

You're right, I haven't. Did you read 1 Corinthians 15:56? I'm reading them alongside one another.

 

[ContraMundum]

I could never understand the 6 24-hour Days creation.

It simply is not in the Bible.

What amazes me the most are the Bible "scholars" who defend this view without even 1 clear verse supporting their theory.

What "yom" means is a period of time. We translated it as "day".
Genesis said there was a certain period of time between an evening and a morning.
No one said 24 hours. Just a period of time - "yom".

Even the Sun was not created till the 3rd "day" and the pull of the Sun is essential in influencing the rotation of Earth around own axis.

How can Christianity go so off radar as far as Bible study is concerned?

It gets tricky when you look at "yom". Usually, when it is parsed with a numeric like "first" or "one" it means a literal 24hr day. That's the usage in scripture.

But the question still remains: was time constant at creation? Especially as time needed to be created as well. How long is 24hrs in creation? Some scientists say that time is being stretched even now- but it seems like a constant to us. Weird.

Personally, I think the dogma is 6 x 24hr days. That's how I read it. But what that means scientifically is another matter.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

For the record, I don't think that "yom" means anything other than a 24-hour day. It's just that it's a 24-hour day within the world of the poem that is Genesis 1, and does not actually posit that a 24-hour day happened at some time in history. It works the same way as The Pilgrim's Progress; "Christian" is a real human character within the world of the tale, and is there to make a theological point, but Christian does not refer to a single actual person who lived in the actual world in real history.

 

[Edial]

What about God creating Man. Was Adam created as an adult from the dust of the earth--- it sure seems to read that way. ???

Of course.
He was carefully sculpted out of earth. The skeleton, then the muscles and so on. Clearly the context of the earth, the "clay" was very different.
Even the animals were made of the stuff.

After the Fall the earth was cursed and only became a shadow of fruitfulness it once was.

 

[Edial]

OK, but the context of Genesis 1 is incredibly different than the context of other places.
If day 1, day 2, day 3 in Exodus is 24 hours ... it was written for our sake as a shadow of the reality of Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 of Genesis 1.

24 hours became 24 hours after the actual creation was completed.
The Sun that influences the rotation of the earth was not even created the 3rd Yom.

The earth was not even rotating the 1st Yom.

 

[Edial]

It gets tricky when you look at "yom". Usually, when it is parsed with a numeric like "first" or "one" it means a literal 24hr day. That's the usage in scripture.

But the question still remains: was time constant at creation? Especially as time needed to be created as well. How long is 24hrs in creation? Some scientists say that time is being stretched even now- but it seems like a constant to us. Weird.

Personally, I think the dogma is 6 x 24hr days. That's how I read it. But what that means scientifically is another matter.

But time is NEVER constant. Rotation of Earth is slowing down each year.

I really do not grasp why is it when "yom" is associated with 1,2,3 it should mean 24 hours?
The context of "yom" in the rest of the Bible is 24 hours because the rest of the Bible describes mostly the post-creation time. Not before, nor during creation, but after.
And even then we do not have a verse saying "24 hours".

For some reason we assume everything is the way it was and everything was the way it is.
We even started reasoning like evolutionists.

Our logic breaks down from the first try.

 

[Edial]

You quoted Romans 5:12, which again says "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"

No death without sin.

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.…

This verse talks about death affecting the world as a penalty for sin.
Death has other non punitive purposes.

 

[Edial]

Let me be clear, as I feel I have not conveyed my feelings properly. If you are an LCMS member who is not a rostered Pastor or teacher, but simply a lay-person, then you can believe whatever you want. However, to insinuate that the Synod needs to change to a more liberal interpretation of Scripture is wrong. The fact that Becker is an ordained Pastor and spews such teachings is wrong.

I for one, however, am not worried about the future of the Synod, as for every evolutionary-proponent there are a hundred more Biblicists who believe in YEC. But if this does become a point of contention and the LCMS chooses to abandon Scripture, then it is my duty as a Confessional Lutheran and as a steadfast Christian to leave the Synod.

Yes, but our problem often is, we are selecting and choosing Biblicists who agree with out opinion.

Why not just clear our minds and look at the text again?

In the end we are expected to follow what we understand from the Scriptures and not what we understand what others say about it.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

For the record, I don't think that "yom" means anything other than a 24-hour day. It's just that it's a 24-hour day within the world of the poem that is Genesis 1, and does not actually posit that a 24-hour day happened at some time in history. It works the same way as The Pilgrim's Progress; "Christian" is a real human character within the world of the tale, and is there to make a theological point, but Christian does not refer to a single actual person who lived in the actual world in real history.

That is why I cannot understand how literal interpretation of the Bible can lead to 6 24-hour days of Genesis.
It's not in the Bible and the clock was not really in place before the Day 3.
And all the Bible says is ... 'there was an evening and there was a morning the 1st "time period"'.

 

[WirSindBettler]

I've made an argument that it isn't, and you simply dismissed it. If I can hold to a doctrine of the fall in light of my own interpretation of Scripture, then what does it matter? We're not bound to have identical interpretations of individual passages of Scripture; we're bound to doctrinal unity. Is young earth six day creationism a doctrine in-and-of-itself? If so, why?

I'm trying to argue that by believing in evolution, you are undermining the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy, and thus, do not fall within "doctrinal unity."

No, it's really not. As long as a person holds to a historic fall of a real historical Adam who really does mark the beginning of humanity's special relationship with God, then what bloody difference does it make? [...] Did you read 1 Corinthians 15:56? I'm reading them alongside one another.

It makes all the difference. Evolution posits that death was essential to the creation of modern man. Scripture posits that Adam brought death into the world.

While you're reading 1 Corinthians 15:56, you also might want to look at the following:

Of course, my original passage:

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" Romans 5:12

But how about some other passages?

"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

"For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." Romans 5:17

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

"So that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:21

"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Romans 5:14
.

.

.

And let's not forget my personal favorite. You claim to believe in a literal Adam and a literal fall. So what was the point of God's warning when he told Adam:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:17

If Adam is warned that when he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he will die, why is this a big deal? Didn't Adam's monkey ancestors die?
.
.
.
Brother, you need to read Job 38.

 

[jonathan1971]

But time is NEVER constant.

Isn't that the truth. That last hour of mid-watch always took twice as long to tic off.

 

[Edial]

Isn't that the truth. That last hour of mid-watch always took twice as long to tic off.

Something off topic - did you know the reason why time seems to speed up the older you get?

When we were young, everything was new. Everything made an impression. We thought and reflected on everything that was new.

When we get older we get into an auto-pilot mode and no longer reflect on things because we have seen it before.
Time flies.

 

[cubanito]

When I was an agnostic, based solely on my understanding of science at the high school level, I rejected any possibility of stars forming from gas (PV=nRT), the formation of biological active macromolecules from inorganic precursurs (chirality) and any form of macroevolution (chromosome number mismatch).

I am now retired from abeing a professor of medicine, with specific interest in single carbon metabolism, and I find the entire modern mythology to which modern science clings even more absurd, impossible and laughable.

Now go on with your ridicule.

JR

 

[ContraMundum]

But time is NEVER constant. Rotation of Earth is slowing down each year.

I agree 100%. I meant the perception of time is constant. Calendar time is how people think of time, but science is saying some pretty mind-bending things about time.

I really do not grasp why is it when "yom" is associated with 1,2,3 it should mean 24 hours?
The context of "yom" in the rest of the Bible is 24 hours because the rest of the Bible describes mostly the post-creation time. Not before, nor during creation, but after.

Again, good points, but the idea that attaching a numeric to "yom" makes it a "day" is quite common in Hebrew even outside of the Bible.

For some reason we assume everything is the way it was and everything was the way it is.
We even started reasoning like evolutionists.

Our logic breaks down from the first try.

I totally agree here too. I think the Biblical dogma is 6 days, but I have no idea what a creation day (or hour) actually looked like.

 

[Edial]

...
Again, good points, but the idea that attaching a numeric to "yom" makes it a "day" is quite common in Hebrew even outside of the Bible.
...

Maybe I am just frustrated and do not understand why intelligent people in countless commentaries do not want to see that although the numeric before "yom" indicates that a 'yom' is a day and not a period of time, this does not necessarily mean a day is 24 hours long.

The reason we made it 24 hours is to get at the evolutionists.
We made it up.
We made up the doctrine of Young Earth just to get at the Evolutionists. And this is driving me crazy. We made up a story to fight another made-up story.

I even have a verse that says the Earth is 'olam. Olam means very, very old. Olam has many definitions, but in each case that definition is of something that is very, very old.
So the very name of the doctrine of "young" earth is flatly against the Bible. Earth cannot be young. It is olam.

Maybe I'm just frustrated, maybe I am sick and tired of a poor testimony we give others the way we bend the Bible to fit our tastes.
Maybe it's a little bit of both.

Thanks,
Ed