Posted on 05/10/2009 8:21:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In The Bible, Rocks and Time (IVP Academic), geologists and Reformed Christians Davis Young and Ralph Stearley try to convince young-earth creationists (YECs) to abandon their position. First, they argue that the Creation account in Genesis 1 need not be understood as a historical narrative documenting the creation of the universe and its inhabitants in six normal (rotational) days. Second, they argue that the data from geology point unwaveringly to a planet of exceedingly ancient age.
I particularly appreciated Young and Stearley's historical overview of church beliefs on Genesis and Creation. Their careful documentation puts to rest the claims of other old-earth proponents that the church fathers held views compatible with an ancient earth. They likewise present the origins of modern geology well, particularly within the broader historical backdrop of Christian influences on scientific thought.
But BR&T is essentially a negative critique. Theologically, the authors seek to show that Genesis 1 need not be understood as describing six rotational days. But if so, which competing view should we adopt? They clearly dislike the "ruin-reconstruction theory" or "gap theory" (there was a large gap of time between the first and second verses of Genesis), and display reservations about the day-age view (the six days were much longer periods). The authors favor some kind of allegorical view (e.g., the "framework hypothesis"), but are steadfast that they will not make a positive case for any of these.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Your confusion is so deep that it is far beyond the capacity of a FR thread to remedy it.
You should open the Bible before attempting to comment thereon.
Got one open right here. Authorized by the appropriate Catholic authorities too ~ and it’s in English. Makes it much easier to read.
“The entire point of Genesis was to make us all understand the inherent goodness of God’s creation - all of it. The point was never to pass on the geological science of how the Earth came to be.”
If the “point” is separated from it’s basis in fact, then the “point” is not a “point” but merely an “opinion”.
To those that believe his word, and do not look to reduce it to a fallible level.
"When was Lucifer created?"
That is not covered by the chronology we are given.
"When did Lucifer rebel?"
It had to be after the six days of creation, because at the end of the sixth day, God said that it was "very good," which would have not been true if rebellion had occurred at that point.
" Isaiah says that God did not create this earth void and without form... it became that way."
Sorry, that simply is not true. The Earth had to be without form at some point if it didn't always exist. (which it obviously didn't)
Not all that rare. If you believe Moses penned Genesis, then writing in both Egypt and Greece had been around hundreds of years.
Moses' primary reason for writing was to set down for the Jews an account of where they came from. There's no reason for the stories of their ancestors, from Abraham back to Adam, which geneology Moses graphed very carefully (remember he was an extremely educated man) should not be true. He was trying to show them how God had moved over time and brought things into being right down to their day.
In the same way, there's good reason to think that the story of the creation of world that Moses set down was accurate as well. There were lots of creation stories floating around at that time and Moses wanted to record the real one. The Jews had just seen lots of miracles; it wouldn't be as hard for them to understand as it seems to be for many of us that God could create the world in 7 days. If God hadn't done so I don't believe Moses would have used the language he used.
I am wondering how you can narrow down "the point" of the chapter to show "the inherent goodness of creation?"
There is now growing scholarship to indicate that Adam wrote Genesis 2:4 to 5:1 on a clay tablet. That tablet, and 10 others, were probably used by Moses to compose the first 37 chapters of Genesis. Trace the use of the Hebrew word, "toledoth."
I'm not a religious person, but it appears to me that religion is about FAITH. What better way to demonstrate faith than to embrace religious ideas despite literally mountains of scientific evidence.
If an omnipotent being created the entire universe, and if that omnipotent being wished to test the faith of humans, then it would practically be required to create the earth with evidence contrary to the faith.
If, instead of what we see, the earth was a place where the evidence for divine creation was obvious to all, no faith would be required to become a Christian. It's the choice to embrace the faith that makes Christianity what it is.
“The key word here is ‘reformed.’”
I hold to a YEC viewpoint mainly because anything else just doesn’t fit theologically (literalness of Adam & Eve, original sin, etc.), so I don’t agree with these authors.
However, the term “reformed” is often a code word for “calvinism” and not liberalism. Henry Morris and his cowriter (a Prebsyterian - thus Calvinist minstry) wrote the definitive first YEC book, “The Genesis Flood.” Most “reformed” Christians I know hold to a YEC or at least a literal creation view. Whatever, I’m not sure that “reformed” means what you think. Blessings on you.
“It doesn’t really matter.”
Well actually brother it does. With all kindness in what I am saying, understand that if we can’t take all of Genesis literally, then how can we take the Garden of Eden situation literally which is essentially to the idea of original sin for which the Lord Jesus Christ had to be the second Adam without sin so he could be the bearer of our sins as described in the Bible. I tell you in great humility that it is indeed important.
He can create (like he did Adam) a creation with the appearance of age, fully formed in other words.
That being said, what I don’t believe in is making assumptions and reading things into the text that are not there.....this leads to a loss in faith if the “assumption” is proven wrong.
No, I don’t believe the earth is over 3 Billion years old, but I also don’t think Usher got his dates completely right either.
Who is more wrong? In my opinion, the old earthers have a lot more explaining to do than young earthers.
“I’m not a religious person, but it appears to me that religion is about FAITH. What better way to demonstrate faith than to embrace religious ideas despite literally mountains of scientific evidence.”
For someone who is “not religious”, I must say I am in awe at your wisdom. The Bible says, “Faith......is the evidence of things not seen.”
My bias is to take Genesis overwhelmingly literally.
However, on issues of Scripture about which reasonable people can differ . . . I have not found those areas to be
CENTRAL to my relationship with God nor CENTRAL to my relationship with those who Love God unsurpassingly.
Indeed. Thank you for sharing your testimony, dear brother in Christ!
To those that believe his word, and do not look to reduce it to a fallible level.
Well whatever the subject every individual will be blasphemed at any given time.
"When was Lucifer created?"
That is not covered by the chronology we are given.
But Lucifer the first rebel was there in Genesis 2 and not one word mentions his creation, but yet Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 both describe his creation. Check out for example Ezekiel 28:12 There Satan is called the king of Tyrus, (a bit of historical record for the student of history) we are told Satan sealest up the *sum*, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
Verse 13 says that Satan was in the Garden of God, Eden... and then we get his past before the Garden of Eden, and even the only named entity that has been judged to death. So Genesis does not cover that 'time' before the 'soul/breath of life' was placed into a mortal vessel.
Peter says there are 3 different heaven/earth ages in IIPeter 3, and Paul says in Ephesians that some were chosen BEFORE the foundation of the world... Now these words 'foundation of the world' are actually a verb that means casting down / overthrow and the overthrow did not happen after the soul was placed in a flesh body.
"When did Lucifer rebel?"
It had to be after the six days of creation, because at the end of the sixth day, God said that it was "very good," which would have not been true if rebellion had occurred at that point.
It could not have happened after because there in the midst of the garden was the 'tree' (figuratively speaking) of the knowledge of good and evil. The very thing that God did not intend for his children in flesh to know or as Solomon says remember the pretty little snake made it his business to inform these 'new' flesh minds, and as I directed you to Ezekiel that describes the creation of Lucifer.
" Isaiah says that God did not create this earth void and without form... it became that way."
Sorry, that simply is not true. The Earth had to be without form at some point if it didn't always exist. (which it obviously didn't
Oh but it is true... Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; *****He hath established it, He created it NOT in vain (very same Hebrew words used in Genesis 1:2) He formed it to be inhabited: "I AM the Lord; and there is none else. ...............NOT even that first rebel so many get enamored by.
Oh, i agree,, i was just pointing out how silly it is to say that its a literally true, word for word, and then interpret that through the lens of being a modern American.
I even doubt it even means a specific period of time “X”. I think its clearly prose, used to make the main critical point. We live in a world that God has made for us. The rest is silliness that detracts from the true message of Jesus.
Not really "despite". Those mountains of evidence will actually always point to the work of God. It's just that we don't have full knowledge yet. But as scientists are faithful to do good science and go where the evidence leads, what is physical around us will always lead to deeper awareness of God (truth). But it takes time because our knowledge is limited.
"Faith" does not mean "blind faith". The bottom-line true meaning of faith as discussed in the New Testament means that one does not trust in (have faith in) one's own righteousness. Rather, a Christian puts all faith in Christ to get total righteousness in order to secure eternal life.
The term has become twisted in discussing scientific matters.
Read “the Age of Reason” by Paine sometime. He wasn’t a bitter person, he was a person of extreme intelligence who could smell dishonesty a mile away. He helped found this country with “common sense”. Common sense is one of the best books you’ll ever read. It swept this country like wildfire. Its sales were only exceeded by the Bible. And Paine didn’t mind going after a sacred cow or two. The colonists who loved the Bible dearly, also consumed the writings of Paine just as voraciously. Odd, huh?
You might find your faith is stronger for reading it. Unless of course, your faith is etremely weak, then don’t read it.
O'Brien explains something similar to Winston Smith in 1984
Big Brother is always right! Don't question it.
My youngest brother described the evolution (if you'll pardon the word) of his faith in almost exactly the terms you described. Once he had recognized Jesus as his saviour, then it led logically, just as you described, to embracing the facts which account for Jesus' life on earth. Without the Original Sin committed specifically by Adam and Eve, there would be no mission on earth for Jesus.
One can see how this interconnectedness of ideas could lead to a uniformity in Christian thought and how the Bible would have a secure and literal place in the teaching of Christianity. If one does not have faith in all of the teachings, then it just wouldn't make sense.
It's been decades since I read it.
Remind me, was there a term used to describe the belief system that Winston was being urged to adopt?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.