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."
Sure are.
Is believing in the Bible a form of idolatry?
Or is it that believing in one's own opinion is a form of idolatry -- ?
How does focusing on God’s ability to create the Earth in six days (vs some other amount of time) take the focus away from God?
“How does focusing on God’s ability to create the Earth in six days (vs some other amount of time) take the focus away from God?”
I referred to young Earth as the form of idolatry.
But not as old as Moses, who wrote this text down by instruction of Jehovah. Eh?
As far as Six days.
“How does focusing on God’s ability to create the Earth in six days (vs some other amount of time) take the focus away from God?”
Exactly as manifested in your question above. It puts the focus on petty argument regarding side issues.
“Is believing in the Bible a form of idolatry?”
No.
“Or is it that believing in one’s own opinion is a form of idolatry — ?”
This can be and often is, yes.
The post was to the issue of God’s dialog to Job, after Job had talked it all out to his friends about his suffering (the poster was referring to God’s dialog there).
In reference to that dialog, Job hadn’t discussed that he didn’t understand creation and that was the source of his grieving ... but that he didn’t understand his suffering. AND ... Job was pretty much “demanding it”. And finally, at the end God stepped in and was basically saying that the “entire story” (of what God knew) was far far beyond Job and that he was going to have to accept that God was far beyond his understanding ... and that’s where it was going to stay.
That wasn’t a commentary by God on “creation” in that mankind could not understand what GOD HAD TOLD THEM, but it was a commentary on the fact that mankind was not going to understand what GOD HAD NOT TOLD THEM! And in that, they were going to have to accept the fact that these unknown things, that God had not told them about was going to remain far far beyond mankind.
In relation to the creation account, some of those things not told would be (for an example) ... “What is the mechanism by which God can merely “speak” and the thing can happen?” AND ... there are a thousand questions like that, which God has not said a thing about.
That which he has told us about, he expects us to know and understand it.
The secret things are the Lord’s. Perhaps in time He will tell us how He did it. Until then we should show humility regarding what we don’t fully understand. In the meantime, we should worry to keep what we do understand. Here in a nutshell is why the Western world is in decline. We have treated the Word of God as an unholy and common thing. It no longer speaks with authority to or informs our culture/s as it once did. When it did, we saw the blessings. Now that we are post-christian, we see the decline - and it is rapid. 50 million abortions shows where we’re at. The places where the Gospel is bearing fruit are in many of the South American countries and in China. The West is basically the Laodicean church. Materially wealthy, spiritually poor if not dead. Full of men’s opinions, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the Truth. Can we expect less than God’s judgement. Perhaps persecution will clean us up but it may just be the price we have to pay to prove once and for all who’s we are.
The Bible being the inerrant and infallible word of God, yes ... everything God says, we are to believe. He made it all, so he should know ... :-) ...
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Judging an argument as petty doesn’t automatically equate it with idolatry. This is only your opinion.
Idolatry is worshiping something other than God. No one is worshipping something other than God here. Therefore, this is not idolatry.
Perhaps the evolutionists will evolve into creationists.
“...but it was a commentary on the fact that mankind was not going to understand what GOD HAD NOT TOLD THEM!”
Thank you for that explanation. Of course I can often be like a two-year old when God gives me an answer, or in reading Scripture. “But whyyyyy?” (I would try to answer my kid’s questions, but on about the fourth “But whyyyy?” I was pretty tired of explaining whatever it was - sky is blue, grass is green, poop, etc.)
My Post #48 speaks a bit to the “secret things of the Lord”. As I indicated, what we “are told” in the Bible is not secret. The things that “are not told” are the secret things.
“Judging an argument as petty doesn’t automatically equate it with idolatry. This is only your opinion.”
I agree with that and, of course, it is my opinion.
“Idolatry is worshiping something other than God. No one is worshipping something other than God here. Therefore, this is not idolatry.”
Yes And in doing so it takes away from God and puts focus on extraneous things.
Young Earth Creationism too often put the emphasis on such a belief to the level where it obscures the Gospel.
An interesting post was here the other day that serves as an example. It was from ICR, I believe, and was titled Atheist Converts to Creationist, as if Creationism were a religion in it’s own right.
Here is the thread I mentioned.
“Creation Conversion: From Atheist to Creationist”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3255669/posts
Very funny!
Before the 17th century, it was not in question. Afterwards, there began to be developed the idea of long ages of time. It has built from that time to the present .., to be now, today, INTENSE INDOCTRINATION ... which cause many to “fold under the pressure” and dispense with the Word of God and what it says in that section.
Before the 17th century, it was not in question. Afterwards, there began to be developed the idea of long ages of time. It has built from that time to the present .., to be now, today, INTENSE INDOCTRINATION ... which cause many to “fold under the pressure” and dispense with the Word of God and what it says in that section.
I agree completely. The Bible is not a science book and it makes little sense to try to fit it into science or science into it. That isn’t the purpose of the Bible.
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.