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."
Two problems.
First is that by the 6th day of creation, time has slowed down considerably.
But beyond that, from Adam’s perspective, time was flowing no differently that it would seem to us.
To the people traveling at or near the speed of light, time seems to be passing normally for them as it does for us, while we would seem to be moving at super high speed. From our perspective, they would be moving exceedingly slow.
But within each framework, time would seem to be passing normally.
So six days from God’s perspective would be and seem like six days. It’s from OUR perspective that great amounts of time have passed.
If you somehow think I denied it, you are far a field friend.
I live and breath and am saved by the Good News of Jesus Christ, my Lord and savior. I'm very sorry if I posted anything in any way that would make you think otherwise
May God bless you richly as He has me.
dear imar,
Your rhetoric resonates well within the walls of the old Aofg building.
Your use of language, particular to those who sit beside you on the pews, does NOT compute, with all of those on the sidelines, because it would bring from memory, all those ‘humahumanukkahumahumaahum’ TV preachers, and their minds will just click to the ‘off’ position.
Also. you might not know, they recently aired on a cable channel, ‘The Wind and the Lion’, a movie where a guy claimed to be ‘the defender of the faithful .... mohammedans. ‘Defender of the faithful’ means you are going to beat the crap out of someone who says you are full of it. Change that term, and you might do something.
Billy Graham never hit anybody over the head with their weighty Collegiate New International Version, with their name embossed on it, and all the pages still shiny 5 years after purchase, and all those stick-on tabs still new.
I remember a sign, placed above the exits of the sanctuary, “Your mission field begins here.” You can’t make folks envious, when you’re preaching. You have to go through, ‘Show and tell’.
Couldn’t God have created in six days a fully mature universe that appeared to be billions of years old? Before you answer that, consider this question: Was Adam created as an infant or a fully grown man?
Now that you’ve got that out, do you feel better?
I don’t have any problem with “perspective time measurement” explanations here. From a sufficiently swiftly moving perspective, you can fit billions of stationary years into a “24 hour day” of the moving entity.
It’s trying to apply it to the static situation that creates problems. Perhaps the “scientific” answer will remain so buried in mystery that we won’t know this side of glory. Metaphysics was not necessarily the same and that also knocks the footing out from under any attempt to do science. The bible perspective elsewhere seems to be for God to allow more time when something needs it, rather than for God to impart “bat out of hell” speeds to human activities.
Seems simple to me. WHY would any one beleve it is 6 days and WHY would anyone NOT beleve it is 6 days?
To answer the first question, Because God says so. To answer the second question: Beats the hell out of me.
imardmd1 wrote:
“Now that you’ve got that out, do you feel better?”
I ‘feel’ exactly the same as I did when I wrote that.
Was I, according to your touchy-feely gauge, supposed to be having a sense of ease, once i finished writing what I did?
Do you actually think that i ‘need’ a fit of insanity and idiocy to write anything?
You have much to learn, grasshopper.
And what is that, if related to this topic?
Today, the English world calls today after a false goddess Friya.
Yesterday was ‘Thor’s day’.
Our Heavenly Father placed a calendar in His sky. He numbered days and months..
His template is found in Ezekiel 46 and actually confirmed throughout
scripture, including Creation.
New moon day
Six work days
Seventh day Sabbath
Those are what He taught His people..
All this talk of days length at creation misses the point that His calendar has been replaced..
Lots of people will call tomorrow valentine’s day..
Or Saturn’s day.
On His calendar, it will be His 2nd Day of the week (one of His Work dys), the 24th day of His month.
The world paying homage and honor to created things or false gods instead of worshipping Him who made heaven, earth the seas and all that is in Him..
Out of ignorance and conformity to this world..
Prophetic... scriptures say the enemy would think to change ‘times’..
Are the ten commandments poetry ... or should we take them literally?
Whenever someone invents a new view, I always ask what theological problem or textual issue are they trying to solve with the new view.
If Gen. 1 is only poetry, so are the Ten Commandments.
“Are the ten commandments poetry ... or should we take them literally?”
I think the Ten Commandments are poetic and of course are to be taken literally.
I am not sure why you need to put that as an either/or.
I also don’t know why you think this addresses the question of the extra-Biblical Young Earth doctrine.
I once saw a religious program hosted by a rabbi who was also a physicist and the way he explained the six days from an expansion of time stand point made complete sense.
We are in agreement ... so lets look at what the text of Exodus 20 actually says ... (NASB text)
1 Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
See the issue? Clearly the Ten Commandments, from a purely textual standpoint, offers the reader no choice but to take them literally ... and since that little statement about in "six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth" is in the middle of these commandments ... if you are going to be hermeneutically consistent (and that's a choice) then you have to take the six days literally as well.
The issue also comes into focus later in Exodus 31 ...
15 'For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.
16 'So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.'
17 "It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."
Now you have the Sabbath clearly explained in the context of a normal work week ... and that in the context of the six days of creation.
I am not sure why you need to put that as an either/or.
Hopefully you see now why it IS an either/or.
I also don’t know why you think this addresses the question of the extra-Biblical Young Earth doctrine.
It is the NON young earth doctrine that is extra-Biblical ... for there is no underlying textual issue that forces us to conclude Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, as I have argued from the above Exodus passages.
It is the desire to harmonize with science that prompts people to reject the literal view.
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.