Young Earth Six Day Creationism: The Scandal of the LCMS

[Resha Caner]

But I really, genuinely don't believe that Scripture teaches young earth six-day creationism, and I don't see why that should make me anything less than a member in good standing. I don't want to preach or teach evolution in church; I don't want to preach or teach young earth creationism in church. I want the law and the gospel, word and sacrament.

It's good to hear you say that. I've gotten the impression in the past that you wanted church resolutions supporting evolution. I guess I was wrong.

I do like church resolutions that continue to emphasize the authority of Scripture, the actively creative role of God, and that interpretation is not a matter of human wisdom subject to popular trends. However, I'm a very tiny minority (of maybe only 1) in the odd position of thinking both sides are wrong. There are some details of God's creative acts we simply are not told, and therefore do not know.

 

[Resha Caner]

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.

I wouldn't quite say that time had to be created, but I do think we lack a full understanding of time, and that plays into the difficulties of this discussion.

With that said, I also think the age of the universe and evolution are two separate issues. Arguing for a 6 day creation does not necessarily argue against evolution.

 

[Resha Caner]

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.

I do agree Adam brought death to humanity, but are you saying there was no death of any kind? That the plants on which animals were feasting didn't die? That no single-cell animals died?

 

[LizaMarie]

However, I'm a very tiny minority (of maybe only 1) in the odd position of thinking both sides are wrong. There are some details of God's creative acts we simply are not told, and therefore do not know.

This is kind of where I'm at. I definitely don't believe in evolution but I'm not a YEC either. I'm what you call an Old Earth Creationist like Dr. Hugh Ross.

 

[Resha Caner]

This is kind of where I'm at. I definitely don't believe in evolution but I'm not a YEC either. I'm what you call an Old Earth Creationist like Dr. Hugh Ross.

My view is closest to Alan Padgett (who happens to be Lutheran), but I don't use the same label he does. Rather, as my profile states, my view is "timeless creation".

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm YEC. I see no reason for God to talk about days and not have them equal what we refer to as days now. God is not the author of confusion.

Assuming anything else other than YEC, in my opinion, creates confusion and causes people to stumble.

And no, we didn't "make up" anything to get at evolutionists. :o

 

[WirSindBettler]

If you read this thread from the beginning, you would understand that the issue at hand is not necessarily the interpretation of "yom" in Genesis, but rather the other issues it brings up, i.e. whether or not there was pre-Adamic death, which the Bible strongly condemns.

The issue is not inerrancy, but rather one of taking the Scriptures at face value and in context to other passages, or in a dangerous interpretation of what evolution sets forth within the LCMS.

 

[Resha Caner]

If you read this ...

To whom are you replying?

 

[WirSindBettler]

To whom are you replying?

To everyone arguing about the meaning of "yom."

 

[Resha Caner]

To everyone arguing about the meaning of "yom."

OK, because I asked you a question about death (post #43), not the meaning of yom.

But since you brought it up ...

All of the semantic arguments are wholly unconvincing to me. IMO they don't matter. The pertinent question is: How would the Hebrews to whom Moses first delivered this text have interpreted it? Unfortunately, that is a very difficult question to answer, but as best I can tell the traditional Jewish interpretation of Genesis is as history with yom meaning "day".

 

[Edial]

I wouldn't quite say that time had to be created, but I do think we lack a full understanding of time, and that plays into the difficulties of this discussion.

With that said, I also think the age of the universe and evolution are two separate issues. Arguing for a 6 day creation does not necessarily argue against evolution.

But wouldn't you say that the term 'in the beginning' indicates beginning of time?

 

[Edial]

I'm YEC. I see no reason for God to talk about days and not have them equal what we refer to as days now. God is not the author of confusion.

Assuming anything else other than YEC, in my opinion, creates confusion and causes people to stumble.

And no, we didn't "make up" anything to get at evolutionists. :o

But the reason we are getting confused not because God caused us to be confused.
We decided to start deducing how old the Earth is based on the Biblical evidence.
And there is none.

One commentator, Bishop (forgot his name) said the earth is 4004 years old. And today no commentator agrees with him because we know it is not so.
There are NO Bible verses for that.
We confuse ourselves.

Even our doctrine "Young" earth is incorrect in it's terminology.
According to the Bible the Earth is 'olam, meaning ancient, very, very old.

If the name itself, "Young" Earth is incorrect, isn't this a hint to us that the doctrine itself is most probably incorrect?

 

[Resha Caner]

But wouldn't you say that the term 'in the beginning' indicates beginning of time?

No. The first line of the 1988 novel Wittgenstein's Mistress is: "In the beginning, sometimes I left messages in the street." I don't take this to mean the story starts at the beginning of time, but it is merely a reference to the beginning of the events relevant to the story.

Likewise with Genesis. It is the beginning of God's creative acts (as the verse states).

 

[Edial]

If you read this thread from the beginning, you would understand that the issue at hand is not necessarily the interpretation of "yom" in Genesis, but rather the other issues it brings up, i.e. whether or not there was pre-Adamic death, which the Bible strongly condemns.
...

Yet death existed before Adam.
The rider on the pale horse is the angel (or spirit or whatever other creature) of Death.

REV 6:8 I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him...
​

Death also has a place, a location where creatures are gathered.

JOB 38:17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?
​

Death was not created during Adam, but before.
Spirits were created before men.

 

[WirSindBettler]

OK, because I asked you a question about death (post #43), not the meaning of yom.

As to your question about whether there was pre-Adamic death among non-humans, no.

When Scripture 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" Romans 5:12

It means that there was no death before sin. Thus, no pre-Adamic death of anything.

"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 15:21-22

But since you brought it up ...

All of the semantic arguments are wholly unconvincing to me. IMO they don't matter. The pertinent question is: How would the Hebrews to whom Moses first delivered this text have interpreted it? Unfortunately, that is a very difficult question to answer, but as best I can tell the traditional Jewish interpretation of Genesis is as history with yom meaning "day".

That's Historical-Critical interpretation, and that is a huge theological no-no (at least among Confessional Lutherans).

We don't look at Scripture based on "its primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and literal sense," (to quote Wikipedia) as you are attempting to do, but rather we look at Scripture to discover the authors original intended meaning.

That's Historical-Grammatical, and that's OK.

 

[Resha Caner]

As to your question about whether there was pre-Adamic death among non-humans, no.

The verse you quote does not explicitly say what you're pulling from it, but I can tell already you'll not entertain any other possibility. Not a single blade of grass, not a single created cell died before the fall. I find that position unnecessarily grandiose - even problematic.

That's Historical-Critical interpretation, and that is a huge theological no-no (at least among Confessional Lutherans).

We don't look at Scripture based on "its primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and literal sense," (to quote Wikipedia) as you are attempting to do, but rather we look at Scripture to discover the authors original intended meaning.

That's Historical-Grammatical, and that's OK.

Smearing views as "historical-critical" is just polemics. You have no better idea what Moses thought than I do what Joshua thought upon hearing his message the first time. It's not the author's original intent we want, but the Spirit's original intent. Lutherans reject the strict Protestant sola scriptura as well as the charismatic "spirit-led" thinking and the RCC "Christ's Vicar" papal position. While we give Scripture the final authority, we are not above using traditional sources (such as Concord) to give an exposition of Scripture.

I am well aware of the dangers of Jewish exegesis, and I did not mean to imply we are beholden to it. But to think Christianity started from scratch in its interpretations and translations of Scripture is just naive.

 

[WirSindBettler]

Lutherans reject the strict Protestant sola scriptura

What on Earth are you smoking? Luther came up with Sola Scriptura!

If you look up Sola Scriptura on Wikipedia half the entry is about Lutheranism!!!

While we give Scripture the final authority, we are not above using traditional sources (such as Concord) to give an exposition of Scripture.

You completely misunderstand our beliefs, you know.

 

[ContraMundum]

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

Actually, I don't think the notion of "yom with a numeric" equaling 24hrs is a new thing made up to bug evolutionists. It simply is using the scriptures to interpret scriptures- a classic exegetical tool. It's not hard to find this ruling in ancient Rabbinic commentaries and Christian writings before the notion of evolution ever occurred to humans. Let's not forget the surrounding word in Gen 1:5- the "evening and the morning were the first day". While people can dispute the meaning of "yom" it's not going to be easy to get around "erev" and "boker" as the qualifiers for the first "yom".

 

[ContraMundum]

Smearing views as "historical-critical" is just polemics. You have no better idea what Moses thought than I do what Joshua thought upon hearing his message the first time. It's not the author's original intent we want, but the Spirit's original intent. Lutherans reject the strict Protestant sola scriptura as well as the charismatic "spirit-led" thinking and the RCC "Christ's Vicar" papal position. While we give Scripture the final authority, we are not above using traditional sources (such as Concord) to give an exposition of Scripture.

I am well aware of the dangers of Jewish exegesis, and I did not mean to imply we are beholden to it. But to think Christianity started from scratch in its interpretations and translations of Scripture is just naive.

I actually think you are both right in your points but the other fella (WirSindB etc) hasn't understood you I think.

What I would humbly say to WSB is that there was a problem with creeping literalism/Biblicism in the US churches across the board before and around the time of the Old Synodical Conference and unfortunately no one was immune. The subtle hint I'm giving is that it just might be the cause of some of the issues his synod now faces - as per the OP. WELS/ELS/LCMS are beautiful, respect worthy church bodies but they are kind of unique to the US too. They have their own shtick, if I may. Just sayin'- there's a big Lutheran world out there, loaded with treasures, and it's not just found in the USA.

 

[ContraMundum]

Luther came up with Sola Scriptura!

I hope not!