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."
Too many people spend too much time trying to prove the first chapters of Exodus.
Too many people spent too much time trying to figure Revelation.
They tend to ignore what is between which is what is really important. Once you understand this you then can figure out the end pieces.
I seem to remember years ago when a little child would ask where babies came from, some people would tell them a stork brought them, others had different stories, I was told that they found me under a rock.
We are just little children to God so why would he waste time explaining something too deep for us to understand, and besides any one knows that even if a little child may understand it might be a bad thing to tell them.
Too many people spent too much time trying to figure Revelation.
I once asked a teacher about a verse in Revelation. His response was to stay away from Revelation; it can drive you crazy.
Once again, we have biblical theologians either, at odds or in agreement, of attempting to use science, to either accredit, or discredit the bible.
A different question is what i ask.
How the truck does that matter, to all those today, that are sitting on the sidelines, taking bets, snickering at your foolishness, wagging their tongues and shaking their heads at you, when it is THEY that you should turning your attention towards, and making THEM envious of what you’ve got?
With nonsense like this, how ya’s gonna do d’at?
They tend to ignore what is between which is what is really important.
Two different threads with the same title and I think they reference the same work.
The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3051495/posts
There’s no reason to think that the first part of Genesis is metaphorical.
This matches how I interpret it and how I teach it. But I wasn't there so I could be wrong.
That goes beyond "Creation" and into "terraforming." See Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory (click here)on that, if you haven't already.
Dr. Jobe Martin (click here) has, and invites evolutionists to review at least some of his tutorials.
Please present proof that the 24-hour theory is the only one considered prior to that point?
You can’t, because it wasn’t.
Smart aleck attitudes vitiate the gospel. God gives grace to the humble.
Except you then have events more fit to a show like “Bewitched” than to nature, like the rate at which Adam named the animals (and the animals came, from around the globe) and the agenda of the formation and meeting of his wife.
You have to believe in Procrustean beds to doggedly carry on with the 24-hour agenda, and yet many do. It is more, not less, entertainment of intellectualism than other, messier theories.
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.
God does not expect everyone to see many, many of the secrets, the "mysteries" in the Bible even when they are explained, even when they are, ostensibly, "believers."
The "psukikos" one, the natural man, cannot receive the deep things of the Holy Spirit because they are moronic to him. Nor can he come to grips with the concepts, because they are seen in the spirit, not with the eyes or by the intellecual facility unaided.
But the "pneumatikos" one, the spiritual (hu)man sees these things as they appear in Scripture by the indwelling Holy Ghost, and the more so--truth built upon other unseen but evident truths--as the mind of Christ possesses him.
Thus Genesis Chapter 1, verse 1 makes sense to the spiritual man, but not to the highly trained and ranked physical scientist, who can explain many things,except where space, time, matter, and physical or spiritual eternal life come from.
Who, then, is the spiritual moron?
"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified".
But then God threw in a caveat:
2Pe_3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Bible history researchers tell us that Adam and Ever lived here 6000 years ago...Or, six days...That ought to perk some ears up...
Rev_20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Rev_20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Rev_20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev_20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev_20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev_20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
A thousand years is the time period that the Kingdom of Heaven will take place on earth...The kingdom prophesied all thru-out the Old Testament...Where the Messiah will reign on earth from Jerusalem...A thousand years, or, one day...The seventh day...A day of rest (for Israel)...Just a coincidence that 'one thousand years' was mentioned six times in the chapter...
The bible says six days/six thousand years...History shows six thousand years...
2Pe_3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
The heavens were of old...And the world perished being covered with water...God created a flood...Was this Noah's flood???
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Some where along the line we got a new earth AND a new heavens...Couldn't have been Noah's flood...
Makes sense to me that people ought to just believe God and then search the scriptures to understand what he is saying instead of trying to discredit the bible...
Because it is exactly those on the sidelines, young or old, small or great, who are asking the questions, fed by them through satanic agitators disguised as evolutionistic scientists and teachers, to scoff at the existence of a Living God and His Only Begotten Son, by which they can be rescued from the life of sin, ignorance, and eternal pain that otherwise awaits them.
Does that compute with you, that a soul-warner ought to be able to answer these questions adequately to get through to the root problem?
And that is why defenders of The Faith contend for it here on FR as well as in their daily conversations with those who have been sidelined by Satan?
There is no discussion in the Chicago Statement on whether the days of creation have to be cardinal numbers rather than ordinal numbers. And that’s really the crux of the issue.
Young Earth creationists insist that the days of creation are necessarily cardinal numbers. But the normal use of language doesn’t compel a restrictive meaning of ‘day’, we often use day to indicate order in time rather than specific quantity. At least that’s the case in English. Unless “yom” is necessarily and always equivalent to a 24 hour time period the Young Earthers are overstating their case.
RW: True.
On this you are way, way wrong, for if you have observed these diligent and qualified scientists exercising their foremost evangelistic vector and skill set, you would see that they regularly go out into every highway and byway to bring the knowledge of Christ not only to the vulnerable schoolchildren but to the hardened God-damning evolutionistic fools.
(Spoken as a PhD spectroscopist) I get daily emailed devotional from the ICR whom you are condemning that treat every topic of salvation and spiritual growth that you might thing of. The founder, Henry Morris, brought out a copy of the King James Version, every page interspersed with wise comments on The Creator. In this month's "Acts & Facts" magazine, his son writes a three-page article on "God's Lovingkindness and Truth" focusing not on "creationism," but on worship and praise of God. On another page Brian Thomas addresses your (false) concerns in an article "Does Teaching Recent Creation Hinder the Gospel?" to which the answer to any person with a true orientation to saving souls is "No! In fact it greatly supports spreading the gospel on every level!"
The same can be said of every prominent practitioner of Creation Evangelism that I have known and met. Creationism is a strong part of every lively gospel outreach worth talking about.
Seems like, to me, the time taken for some to be participating on FR over and above their evangelistic outreach may actually be a hindering factor in believing or bearing the True Gospel.
And wouldn't you think that a Father whose intent on writing a book whose theme is "The Coming of Jesus The Messiah, and His Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace" and Whose purpose is to save fallen humans, reconciling and restoring them to be citizens of that Kingdom, engage its readers at the outset by starting with:
"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. . ."
and go on from there, by progressively revealing Himself and His Ways?
Actually, as a first-grader in Sunday School, the very first verse I memorized was that above, and it was with me when the chips were down, my life had failed, and I needed to turn to Someone Who could help me. It was to The Creator and His Son that I turned, and He did not fail. Come on, fellas!
Please don't leave out the qualifying operning verse of this discourse:
"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." Yes, GB, that is how Paul came to the Corinthians, directly after being on the Athenian Areopagus where he tried to engage them in a profitable debate on the Unknown God, and was mocked the philosophers there and sent away as a rube.
But that is not how he went away, for while there he gave them what they needed to know about making disciples and starting a church. This letter was one of the followup epistles giving them yet more orders in how to diminish fractious effects and persons in their assembly.
And you might want to check out Romans 1, and see if The Gospel was not quite tightly sewed up with creation, hm?
Well said!
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.