Posted on 02/11/2015 3:05:42 PM PST by Graybeard58
NASHVILLE (BP) -- An article by a popular evangelical blogger arguing that the six "days" of creation in Genesis were not literal 24-hour periods has prompted discussion among Christians about the earth's age and whether orthodoxy necessarily entails believing in a young earth.
Justin Taylor, senior vice president and publisher for books at Crossway, posted a blog article Jan. 28 arguing that there are "biblical reasons to doubt the creation days were 24-hour periods." The article, which was shared on Facebook 15,000 times during its first two weeks online, also noted famous people from church history who did not believe Genesis describes six 24-hour days.
"I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons -- in the creation account itself -- for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods," Taylor, a Ph.D. student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote. "Am I as certain of this as I am of the resurrection of Christ? Definitely not. But in some segments of the church, I fear that we've built an exegetical 'fence around the Torah,' fearful that if we question any aspect of young-earth dogmatics we have opened the gate to liberalism."
"Defenders of inerrancy" who did not believe in six 24-hour periods -- like Augustine, J. Gresham Machen and Carl F.H. Henry -- "show that this is not the case," Taylor wrote. "And a passion for sola Scriptura provides us with the humility and willingness to go back to the text again to see if these things are so."
The BF&M & creation
Southern Baptist seminary professors -- though divided on whether Taylor's conclusion is correct -- agreed that old-earth creationism falls within the bounds of the Baptist Faith and Message. However, they distinguished old-earth creationism from theistic evolution.
Old-earth creationism contends that God brought the world into existence from nothing by His direct action and not evolution. Old-earth creationists say the earth is billions rather than thousands of years old and that the "days" of Genesis 1 were not 24-hour periods. Theistic evolutionists claim God used evolution to create, directing the process but not simply speaking things into existence.
Young-earth creationists believe God created the world from nothing between 6,000 and 50,000 years ago in six literal days.
Jason Duesing, provost at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Baptist Press he disagrees with Taylor's blog post but believes it "is helpful because it reframes a well-worn debate topic back to what the text actually says."
"As the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 does not specifically address the age of the earth, much like the finer points of eschatology, it is a secondary matter to determine what SBC seminary professors believe about the issue. I do not mean to imply it is not important for under the BF&M, SBC faculty must affirm the creation and existence of a literal Adam and Eve and see no room for the affirmation of theistic evolution," Duesing said in written comments.
"Personally, I remain convinced that the young-earth view best accounts for the plain reading of the Bible, and while I have not polled the faculty at Midwestern on this topic, I suspect the majority of the faculty would as well. For those who hold to an old-earth view, I support the legitimacy of their doing so and enjoy the sharpening that comes from healthy dialogue, even as their conclusions and implications do cause me some good natured head-scratching. In the end, I see this as an intramural discussion among creationists and hope that such only serves to bind us closer together in refuting that which is clearly contrary to Scripture, the theory of evolution," Duesing said.
The Baptist Faith and Message refers to God as the "Creator" and explains, "Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation."
An old earth?
Taylor presented five biblical considerations that lead him to believe the "days" of Genesis 1 were longer than 24 hours. Among Taylor's arguments:
-- "The seventh 'day' is not 24 hours long."
God's creation "rest" was not limited to a 24-hour period, Taylor wrote, noting that Hebrews 4 underscores this point.
-- "The 'day' of Genesis 2:4 cannot be 24 hours long."
"After using 'the seventh day' in an analogical way ... we read in the very next verse, Genesis 2:4: 'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day [yom] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,'" Taylor wrote. "The precise meaning of this is debated. But what seems clear, if we believe the Bible does not contradict itself, is that this (singular) 'day' -- in which the creation events (plural 'generations') occur -- cannot refer to a single 24-hour period."
-- Genesis 2:5-7 assumes that the "day" described in Genesis 2:4 was longer "than an ordinary calendar day" because it included natural "seasons and rain cycles" that take longer than 24-hours.
Taylor argued that God does not want readers of Scripture to substitute the word "eons" or "ages" when they see the word "day." But neither does He want readers "to think of precise units of time, marked by 24 exact hours."
Ken Keathley, professor of theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and coauthor of "40 Questions About Creation and Evolution" (Kregel), told BP he agrees with Taylor and is "convinced that the 24-hour interpretation does not do justice to all that the text says."
The old-earth interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is becoming increasingly popular among Southern Baptists, Keathley said.
"Prior to the 1960s, the majority of evangelical pastors and professors (including those in the SBC) held to old-earth creationism," Keathley said in written comments. "In 1961 John Whitcomb and Henry Morris published 'The Genesis Flood' and the young-earth movement was born. Until recently, young-earth creationism has been the predominant view among evangelicals in general and Southern Baptists in particular.
"A significant change is happening now. The arguments in 'The Genesis Flood' have not stood the test of time, and very few young-earth advocates use them. More and more pastors and leaders are realizing that the Genesis text does not lend itself easily to the young-earth position. Many of the strongest proponents of the old-earth interpretation are Old Testament scholars," Keathley said.
A young earth?
James Hamilton, professor of biblical theology at Southern, disagrees with Taylor. In a Feb. 9 blog article responding to Taylor, Hamilton cited as a key passage in the debate Exodus 20:10-11 -- "But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. You must not do any work -- you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates. For the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six says; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy."
The "most natural reading of Exodus 20:10-11 seems to be that the six days of creation followed by the Sabbath day of rest was a cycle of the same kind of seven day week that was to become the pattern of Israel's experience," Hamilton wrote. "It's hard for me to imagine someone coming to some other kind of conclusion unless he seeks to accommodate extra-biblical considerations from philosophy (a la Augustine) or science (a la contemporary old earthers)."
Other respondents to Taylor also discussed whether his arguments were driven solely by study of the Bible or by outside influences as well.
Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, wrote in a blog post that Taylor's "real motivation is that outside influences have already led him to postulate whatever reasons he can try to muster not to be adamant about six literal days of creation in Genesis 1."
Ham added, "When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on six, literal, 24-hour days of creation and a young earth, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in an old earth/universe (billions of years). Even though some try to claim that is not so but that they are just looking at what the Bible says, if you ask the right questions, I assert, you will find this strong influence is there. You simply do not get the idea of millions or billions of years from Scripture -- it comes from outside Scripture."
Evangelical blogger Samuel James responded to Ham at the Patheos website, stating that Ham's blog was "an incredibly irresponsible reply to an article that deserved much better." Hamilton similarly wrote that young-earth creationists should hold their position "with epistemological humility and not, as AiG does, suggest that old-earth creationists ... are opening the door to abortion on demand and gay marriage."
James wrote in his blog, "If Ham believes that adherence to YEC [young-earth creationism] is essential for Gospel faith, he should produce the necessary theological arguments. Until he does, Ham has absolutely no right to slough off well written and fairly argued articles that present inerrancy-friendly challenges to YEC interpretations. Ham's response is the kind of attitude that stifles productive discussion and unnecessarily divides the church. He should, and can, do better."
It seems to me that the underlined is a key point: to argue that 'day' must mean strictly 24-hours is to ignore Joshua's Long Day which also was a 'day', and like you point out clearly associates the sun's apparent movement with the time… but when there's no sun, how do you define it? (Obviously asserting 24-hours is, again, relying on the sun.)
When the Lord says that “the evening and morning were the first day,” I believe Him. He’s MORE than able to do it in six, literal “24-hour” days.
The author was God and as I indicated just before this post ... the following applies ...
— — —
If something is “in Scripture” ... this applies ...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I think there is a problem about time between God and us and that happens to intersect at creation. God exists outside of time. Earth exists within time. Explaining the act of creation which occurred within time and without will be impossible to translate. Whenever I look at the discussion of old/young earth I am mindful of God lecturing Job about creation and am reminded to be humble about any interpretation.
Ah, but to assert that the spiritual light was created is to call Jesus a created being, and that just ain't so. (See John 1.)
For that a good starting point is the following ...
— — —
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Background
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219. The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Preface
The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.
The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstandings of this doctrine in the world at large.
This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.
We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God’s grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.
We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God’s Word we shall be grateful.
— The Draft Committee
A Short Statement
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
— — —
The actual statements follow ... see the link ...
Of course whatever the Bible says is true. But it’s not always literal. For instance, when Paul says in Ephesians that Jesus is the Cornerstone of the Church, he certainly means it—but not with complete literalness (e.g., that Jesus is literally a stone).
God is addressing that to us ... “in time” ... and he expects us to understand it, per 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
When God spoke to Job, it was about things he didn’t understand because they were not given to him to understand. We ARE GIVEN this by God and are thus EXPECTED to understand it, like I pointed out from Timothy.
“...the sheer importance of spiritual light.”
Good point. And E=MC2, so the energy “light” would also include mass.
God has changed things in the natural world though after the seventh “day” of Creation. Prior to the flood there was no rain. A mist would rise up from the ground and water the plants.
Being in the earth sciences I can’t get my head around that one though, with the physical evidence of long-term erosion that we observe. I know that certain huge landforms can be created in a week due to geologic catastraphic events (such as collapse of glacial dams, etc.) But that is not typical of most land forms.
Im not sure I understand. Job knew the Creation story.
I think that your Timothy scripture goes deeper than “okay, understand how I made the Earth”.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
The Creation story in its deeper meaning is God saying “Okay, I made it, I am your Creator. And this is WHY I created it. And this is what you are supposed to do with it, and how you are supposed to relate to me.”
He wants to walk alongside us like back in the Garden of Eden. And because of Jesus, we can.
How so?
In which case, it's obvious to us that Paul does not mean the Jesus is literally building material. But, when God says there was the evening and morning of the day, why in the world would you over-think such a plainly worded statement? Of course He meant a DAY, as we understand it. He is God, and He made all we see, and more! He is easily able to do it in five minutes if He wanted to.
“If something is “in Scripture” ... this applies ...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
So precisely which scripture defines days as having 24 hours, or something other than that?
Look at the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, which accounts for these things ... this is the second part ...
Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
Article X
WE AFFIRM that Scripture communicates God’s truth to us verbally through a wide variety of literary forms.
WE DENY that any of the limits of human language render Scripture inadequate to convey God’s message.
This Affirmation is a logical literary extension of Article II which acknowledges the humanity of Scripture. The Bible is God’s Word, but it is written in human words; thus, revelation is “verbal.” Revelation is “propositional” (Article VI) because it expresses certain propositional truth. Some prefer to call it “sentential” because the truth is expressed in sentences. Whatever the term—verbal, propositional, or sentential—the Bible is a human book which uses normal literary forms. These include parables, satire, irony, hyperbole, metaphor, simile, poetry, and even allegory (e.g., Ezek. 16-17).
As an expression in finite, human language, the Bible has certain limitations in a similar way that Christ as a man had certain limitations. This means that God adapted Himself through human language so that His eternal truth could be understood by man in a temporal world.
Despite the obvious fact of the limitations of any finite linguistic expression, the Denial is quick to point out that these limits do not render Scripture an inadequate means of communicating God’s truth. For while there is a divine adaptation (via language) to human finitude there is no accommodation to human error. Error is not essential to human nature. Christ was human and yet He did not err. Adam was human before he erred. So simply because the Bible is written in human language does not mean it must err. In fact, when God uses human language there is a supernatural guarantee that it will not be in error.
— — —
The first part I mentioned up above ...
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Old-age "creation" demands that"by death (hence sin) came man" rather than "by man came sin (hence death)."
Old-age "creation" demands that whatever God made, It was not made "good" enough. Something had to make it better.
Old-age "creation" not only demands, but insists, that The God not be in toto beyond man's comprehension.
But was it a solar day?
Our sun had not yet been created.
(Just sayin')
You were asking what difference it makes ... that was the answer to that.
But in answer to your question now ... this should give you a good scope of it ...
Why did God Take Six Days?
http://www.creationists.org/how-long-is-a-day-in-the-bible.html
Trying to turn the book of Genesis into a modern science textbook is indeed futile. I have a Roman coin and I am supposed to believe it is 30% of the age of the universe. Really? Dinosaurs coexisted with people. Really? The tectonic plates don’t exist and the continents were moved to their current place in a 40 day flood. Really? Just about everything you see when you look at the night sky is an illusion. Really? God made everything to falsely appear older than they are as some test of faith, I guess.
So how long was the first day?
As something that takes focus away from God and the Gospel.
It’s like the Mary worship of Catholics, but not necessarily as dangerous.
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.