Storming Young-Earth Creationism ( is Genesis 1 the only text at issue?)

Christianity Today ^ | 4/30/2009 | Marcus R. Ross

[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.

[Quix]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS.

SORRY! LOL.

Though I think it works re the topic, either way. It wasn’t what you wrote!

[editor-surveyor]

The ‘angels’ were a part of the creation, they are not a part of God.

They possibly were created before man, but there is nothing in scripture to support that, one way or the other, but the fall was definately after day six, or the creation could not have been called “very good” in truth. A fallen system is not very good, and even Lucifer, before he acquired lust, was also very good.

[what's up]

We don’t know that they were really all that Greek

Apples and oranges.

Point is, there were civilizations that had writing in Greece well before the classical era.

[JohnnyM]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.

I'm not very good at writing long tomes :)

I do think there is signifigance in God not calling the second day good or night good, when He expressly calls every other day good.

I am a staunch supporter of a literal 6 day, 24 hour a day, account of Genesis 1, and to deny this is to put into question the very Truth of God's Word.

JM

[Quix]

The book at the top of the thread is a long tome on the topic.

I think your insight about the difference in the “good” days etc. is an apt one.

I certainly don’t call into question the accuracy nor the authority of God’s Word.

I do question finite assumptions about obscure parts of it.

Things about which reasonable earnest authentic Believers differ must not be a super high priority, to God . . . else He’d have made them clearer.

[JohnnyM]

Neither side knows when the angels were created. I fall on the side of pre-creation, you fall post-creation. We disagree.

Eph 2:2 refers to Satan as the prince of the power of the air. Day 2 is the creation of the firmament or the sky. So one can conclude that the reason the second day was not considered good was because the firmament was under the dominion of Satan.

This physical world, this creation, is wholly different from the spiritual world. Just because there were fallen angels in the spiritual world, does not mean that the creation was fallen. The fall of creation did not happen until Adam took of the fruit of the tree. Until he sinned against God.

JM

[editor-surveyor]

No, there were not yet fallen angels, and Lucifer was not yet Satan.

You’re adding to scripture.

[Fichori]

A few points on the article.

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.

A literal (Genesis 1) six day Creation is irrelevant to the age of the Earth.

They should know that.

So, they are not trying to get the YECs to compromise, they are trying to get anyone who believes in a six day Creation to compromise.

Second, they argue that the data from geology point unwaveringly to a planet of exceedingly ancient age.

Interestingly, the data from geology has to keep getting revised.

The Bible does not.

Theologically, the authors seek to show that Genesis 1 need not be understood as describing six rotational days.

I think these geologists should stick to geology as theology does not appear to be their strong point.

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.

Declaring a passage to be allegorical seems to be the easyiest way to deal with something that you don't like.

Don't like one of the ten commandments?

Just call it allegory.

[Fichori]

“God inspires men ~ He doesn't dictate anything.” [excerpt]

Actually, He did quite a bit of dictating to Moses.

He even did some writing of His own.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views, dear brother in Christ!

[Fichori]

“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.” [excerpt]

I believe Usher was off a bit with his calculations.

Generally speaking, I think he had the right idea, even if he didn't get it quite right.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You're thinking of this.

I blame the controversy on the men who translated the Old Testament in the Septuagint for using "mera", and of course, global warming.

[Fichori]

“I see Genesis 1:1,2 as the general overview statement for
what follows in the rest of creation.

As such, there is no time attached. So I do not have any
problem with that period being any length of time before
God chose to shape a world that was “formless and void”” [excerpt]

Check out Exodus 20:11 & 31:17

Start to finish was six days. (According to what God told Moses anyway)

[muawiyah]

Not a lot of dictating ~ a few lines here and there ~ you know that.

Moses wrote down those hundreds of rules all by himself. That was the heavy lifting ~ God did the synopsis!

[JohnnyM]

"You’re adding to scripture."

I am not. I used Scripture to back up my claim. It may be an incorrect assertion, but it is Scriptural.

"No, there were not yet fallen angels, and Lucifer was not yet Satan"

You do not know that. You have an argument from silence.

JM

[JohnnyM]

actually, I would say you have an argument from perceived silence, because there is evidence to the contrary to Satan's origins. Ezekiel 28 being one of them.

JM

[Fichori]

“Not a lot of dictating ~ a few lines here and there ~ you know that.” [excerpt]

You may, but I don't.

The description of the tabernacle is certainly more than a few lines. (Exodus 25:1)

“Moses wrote down those hundreds of rules all by himself.” [excerpt]

Well, in Exodus 20:1 it says ‘And God spake all these words, saying,’ and He doesn't let up for several chapters.

And then in Exodus 35:1 Moses says ‘These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them’ which leaves me with the impression that during one of their face to face chats, God told Moses, here is a list of things you should do if you know whats good for ya.

Leviticus 1:1 ‘And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,’

What follows is several chapters of dictated Levitical law.

[muawiyah]

What you're saying is that outside of a couple of stone tablets (possibly) God didn't do much writing Himself but he certainly inspired Moses to do some serious writing.

At the same time there are materials in those first 5 books that are clearly "history", not just "inspired" spiritual content. Makes Moses a writer, editor AND, of course, a publisher!

[phillyfanatic]

\
Your point about Jesus is point on. The other stuff is still important if one lives, works in a so called elite, intellectual, scholarly community: colleges, universities et al. After all, it is also fun as well as stimulating to opine on theories, on certain geological , anthropological, historical facts and deal with issues such as pre-historic, dinos et al. But, the final point is what will all the readers, listeners, opinion makers do with Jesus?!

[Fichori]

“What you're saying is that outside of a couple of stone tablets (possibly) God didn't do much writing Himself but he certainly inspired Moses to do some serious writing.” [excerpt]

No, thats not what I'm saying.

If I said, hey, muawiyah, write the following down, and then commenced speaking, would I be inspiring you?

Or would I be giving you a word for word dictation of what I wanted you to write down.

“At the same time there are materials in those first 5 books that are clearly "history", not just "inspired" spiritual content. Makes Moses a writer, editor AND, of course, a publisher!” [excerpt]

No argument there.

My point was that a good chunk of it is a historical record of when God said, hey, Moses, write this down, and Moses, being a generally smart guy when it came to knowing what was good for him, wrote down what God said... (ie, God dictating to Moses what He wanted written)