With regards to events surrounding May 21st, it should be noted that in the continuing debate between Young Earth and Old Earth creationists, the veracity of the Bible is never questioned. Indeed, the phrase "standing on Biblical truth" is shared by both sides. Of course, the nits to be picked have to do with the interpretation of Biblical truth, don't they?
With that in mind, it is interesting to note what is not found in the conclusion of the first creation account per Genesis 2:
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. - ESV
What is not contained is any mention of an ending to the seventh day (e.g., "and there was evening, and there was morning").
Has the seventh day ended? Well, if one stands on Biblical truth, and looks in the book of Hebrews, one will find:
Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,
“As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’”
although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said,
“They shall not enter my rest.”
Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,
“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”
For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. - ESV
Let's let the Bible speak for itself. Okay?
Additional resources:
I wrote something similar to this a long time ago, though I can't seem to find it anywhere. It certainly makes the 7x24 hour period view of Genesis 1 seem less likely, and the day-age view seem more likely.
I don't think either view is correct, though. Genesis 1 is a response to other creation myths, explaining how God is different from the Egyptian and Canaanite gods (intentional vs. accidental creation, creator of all vs. part of a pantheon, ruler over all creation vs. partly subject to its powers.) The timeline strikes me as a poetic device for communicating those truths -- the truths that were most important for the people at the time of Moses to start grasping.
All sides in this debate are attempting to grasp Biblical truths, to take the Bible seriously and understand what it really means. Consider this my contribution to that ongoing debate -- it's my best effort to take the passage seriously.
(My wife wrote a more detailed argument at http://www.tomandcatherine.com/Gen1.html )
Posted by: LotharBot | May 21, 2007 at 01:06 PM
I forgot to add:
Back when I was a day-ager, I wondered if maybe it wasn't day 7 that was still going on, but day 6. Day 7 is God's rest, which nobody has entered yet. Was it prophetic? Is the whole rest of the Bible / human history "day 6"?
I dropped that view in favor of "the timeline is a poetic device, totally unimportant to the story", but it might be worth considering if you're in the day-age camp.
Posted by: LotharBot | May 21, 2007 at 01:43 PM
LotharBot,
I agree with a lot of what you've said. It's been my thinking that the main reason the Genesis 1 account does not explicitly state the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4+ billion years old is that such information is extraneous to God's purpose. Not only is it not necessary, for God's plan of salvation, the ancients would have had no need for such knowledge. It's also interesting to note that the Genesis 1 account does not explicitly state that the universe is only 6,000+ years old, either.
You bring up a very good point regarding the intended meaning of the accounts. One has to consider the fact that the Israelites had just spent 400 years in Egypt. God is clear in instructing them that the natural realm is not to be worshiped because it was He who created the natural realm! How interesting it is to see that the Sun and Moon are not even named but are referred to as great lights. Also, the 6 / 1 pattern is clearly established and grounded for further law regarding the Sabbath.
Your wife's analysis is very good. I would probably quibble with her regarding some aspects of the "literal" reading of Genesis and to what extent we should take Genesis as history.
I agree that none of the current interpretations have a complete handle on just how the creation occurred. It seems to me, though, that the day-age and framework views* fit best within the Biblical parameters as well as explaining the data we observe.
* see http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html
Posted by: Rusty | May 21, 2007 at 07:19 PM
Indeed, the phrase "standing on Biblical truth" is shared by both sides. Of course, the nits to be picked have to do with the interpretation of Biblical truth, don't they?
Good point, Rusty. Maybe you should *rest* from accusing YEC friends of believing propeganda. You may not agree with their interpretations of Scripture, but for YECists, the Bible is the core reason for believing what they believe. As God was the only One around at the time, He would be the most trusted and accurate source for information about the creation of the world.
Posted by: Wendy | May 21, 2007 at 10:13 PM
"Maybe you should *rest* from accusing YEC friends of believing propeganda."
Oooo, Wendy... you've been talking with someone we both know and love, haven't you? "Propaganda*: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."
If, as you state, God is the most trusted and accurate source of information regarding the creation of the cosmos: 1) What need is there to include any aspects of science within the YEC interpretation?, 2) Is not our interpretation of God's created realm an analysis of His trusted and accurate information?, and 3) How does our interpretation of God's written Word not utilize the same analytical faculties required to analyze His created realm?
* http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=propaganda
Posted by: Rusty Lopez | May 22, 2007 at 08:23 AM
Rusty,
Yep...someone did mention something about a conversation about propaganda vs. Biblical truth.
I had a feeling you were going to give me the definition of propaganda and looked it up in Websters last night. Propaganda - the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution or cause. Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.
Sure, if you want to be technical, the spreading of propaganda doesn't necessarily imply something negative, but if you check out all three links from the web defition you posted where propaganda is also mentioned (Columbia, Wikipedia, and Hutchinson) you see that it is often thought to be negative. One site says this about it -"propaganda is a certain type of message presentation directly aimed at manipulating the opinions or behavior of people, rather than impartially providing information." What comes to mind when I think of propaganda is manipulation, bias, a lack of concern for truth, and the promotion of the cause being more important than the promotion of truth. Maybe we're just disagreeing on the interpretation of the word propaganda? (Ha-ha)
My point was not to get into a debate about YEC/OEC. I was pointing out that my reason for believing the YEC position is that I believe the creation account is best explained by the natural reading of the text, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and considering the character of God. The Bible isn't a science book, and it doesn't say HOW God created the world, but I believe it to be a reliable source of information about how long it took, what order it happened, how big the flood was, etc. I believe the creation account is given from God's perspective, not man's, so when the Bible says stars were created on Day four, it means that's when they were created - not that they just appeared that day. My starting point is Scripture, not science. When I see something that seemingly implies a contradiction between the two, I would rather stand on the natural reading of the Scripture than try to figure out how to make Scripture fit with what we think we see in science. Science is ever changing, and scientists are not infallible. There's plenty of propaganda on both sides of this issue so I am most comfortable trusting the infallible word of the One who was there in the beginning. That IS letting the Bible speak for itself.
Posted by: Wendy | May 22, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Wendy,
Ah yes, propaganda as intended to convey truth or propaganda as intended to convey opinion or... propaganda as intended to convey one's opinion of the truth?
With regards to YEC, it is my opinion that propaganda enters the arena when attempts are made to use science to justify the YEC position. Simply put, it's not there and almost every use of science by YEC I've seen is either blatantly wrong or relies on out of context anamolies. As I referenced on my post a couple of months ago, there have also been unwarranted gross mischaracterizations of OEC persons and organizations by some in the YEC camp. When I see some of their ideas, such as dinosaurs riding on Noah's ark, quite frankly I see that as propaganda.
Attempts to justify such notions, via means of scientific data, also seem to contradict the supposed YEC position that a natural reading of scripture be used. By the way, just what is a "natural" reading of scripture and how is such a reading the default method for understanding the intended meaning? Several hundred years ago the natural reading of certain scripture caused some people to think that the earth did not move. But their natural reading was incorrect (as a sidenote: I would venture to say that a person living in the 21st century West, given a "natural" reading of Exodus, would not understand the intended meaning with regards to the comparison of Yaweh and Egypt's animistic religions). The early church fathers themselves were not in agreement regarding the aspect of the days in Genesis 1 - who was reading naturally and who wasn't? It could be argued that the YEC interpretation, as seen by groups like ICR, has been around for less than 200 years - the main reason for being that the question of age was simply not an issue. Of what use would it have been to the Israelites to have known that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth formed 4.8 billion years ago? Yet how magnificient is it that the text, written to an ancient culture, supports data from the 21st century? How wondrous is it that, thousands of years before science determined that the universe had a beginning, the Bible declared it?
The problem, as I see it, with relying solely on the natural reading (when confronting a potential contradiction) is that such a stance is not defensible as the default and, more importantly, such a stance, by its very nature, runs the risk of eliminating the correct answer. Another point to consider is that there are multiple creation accounts in the Bible. Whenever one encounters mulitple accounts one had best use the "harmonization" technique for reconciling the accounts. The YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with other areas of scripture (one aspect of which is the point of my post). That is what I consider letting the Bible speak for itself.
Science is ever changing and scientists (as well as humans, in general) are not infallible. Yet just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know something. While science is ever changing I'll bet even YECists board airplanes, fully confident that the science of aerodynamics is a correct interpretation of the laws of physics. I'll bet that even YECists won't place their hands in the flame of a campfire, even though they might not know the intricate complexities of internal combustion. That's the thing with measuring the age of the universe... the evidence is overwhelming, if not, essentially, certain.
Lastly, I would be more open to YEC apologists that took the approach of Dr. John Mark Reynolds, of Biola. The scientific basis for a YEC interpretation is, for all intents and purposes, not there, and John Mark Reynolds admits as much. Yet his approach is attune more towards viewing a Biblical interpretation in conjunction with that of philosophy. Such an approach, in my opinion, drops the propaganda and relies on the meat of the particular argument (and, for what it's worth, if anyone could cause me to change my stance, it would be JMR's arguments).
Posted by: Rusty Lopez | May 22, 2007 at 03:20 PM
I'm wary of the claim that the creation account is given "from God's perspective". I think it's more accurate to say the creation account was given so that God could communicate certain truths to His people. Both the speaker (God, through Moses) and the audience (ancient Israel) must be considered when you're trying to understand "perspective".
God intended for the Israelites who'd just come out of captivity and entered the promised land to learn something from that particular text. I believe God intended to provide them with a story that demonstrates how He differs from the Egyptian and Canaanite gods. From God's perspective, the story communicates exactly what He intended for it to communicate, provided the person reading the story comes from the background his original readers did. That doesn't mean the "days" are literally true from God's perspective, though -- only that God used the creation "days" to communicate His message of His power, sovereignty, etc. to the ancient Israelites.
You appeal to the "natural" reading. I say, go beyond that. Go beyond what's natural for 21st century Americans, and look at what the natural reading would have been for the very first readers. What would they have gotten out of this passage? What would've popped out to them? Do you really think their first inclination would have been to try to compute the age of the earth, or do you think it would've been to say "oh wow, Yahweh is really different from the other gods I knew"?
Let me be more explicit: the "natural" reading of a passage changes depending on the perspective of the reader. Culture, technology, science, philosophy, and education level all influence the way a reader will interpret a passage on their first pass. An ancient Jew might read passages about the four corners of the earth and picture a square earth in his head, and that might be the most "natural" picture to him, but it would never even occur to me; I read it naturally as a poetic device. But what we should both get out of the passages about the four corners of the earth is God's sovereignty over it all. It's important for us to make a habit of reading scripture with that idea in mind -- what's important is what God intended to communicate, not what's "natural" or "literal" or "applies to my life".
Posted by: LotharBot | May 22, 2007 at 05:12 PM
Rusty,
As I said in the beginning, my intent was not to get into the debate of YEC/OEC. If John Mark Reynolds doesn't convince you already, certainly nothing I can say will. I also do not mean to say that a person should only look at the natural meaning of the text. I mentioned that Scripture should be compared with Scripture and with the revealed character of God, but I don't believe we should limit it to just those three things either. Of course I believe we can look to science to help us explain things in the world. I believe the age of the earth is an important topic to study, much like calvinism, but I am not equipped to defend it adequately, nor do I think I ever will be. I responded to your original post because you said that the idea of biblical truth was on both sides, and I knew what you had said earlier in a conversation about the propaganda issue. I simply wanted to express that what I believe about YEC is because from what I have studied, I think OEC have a weaker argument biblically speaking. If I am to err, I would rather err on the side of what I believe the Bible says plainly enough that anyone who picks it up and reads it can understand it. In my opinion, OEC twists Scripture to say what it does not say, and in doing so takes away from the spiritual meaning of the text. YEC may have weaker scientific evidence (although I think your criticism is a bit harsh when you say that almost every use of it is blatently wrong), but I am satisfied that they have more Biblical evidence on their side. OEC may have stronger scientific information, but I believe their arguments are very weak.
With regard to the subject of your original post, I believe there is a better explanation for why the is no mention of an ending than the idea that we are still in Day 7. I don't think God needed 6 days to create the world, but He did it that way to model our week after the creation week. Not having an ending to Day 7 is a spiritual picture of eternity. The rest we will enter has a beginning, but has no ending point in time. I don't believe the context or intent of that passage was to demonstrate that the days were long and that we're still in Day 7. If God wanted to say the days were long periods of time, He could have said that. Instead, God said there was a morning and evening, which contextually means a 24 hour period of time. I believe trying to say that not mentioning an evening gives evidence for a long period of time takes away from what I consider to be the intent of the passage. I believe saying that animals suffered and died before the Fall, takes away from the beautiful picture of Adam and Eve witnessing the very first death and shedding of blood of an innocent creature because of their sin. They were clothed with its skin, as we are clothed with righteousness. I realize that OEC can see the spiritual lessons in Genesis, too, but I believe they weaken the stories when they try to use those passages to say something that isn't really the intent of the story. This is a debate that will continue for a long time, I'm sure, and I know we won't come to a meeting of the minds here. I just wanted to point out that I believe you made a flippant comment about YEC without considering that we have considered the issue and aren't just blindly accepting whatever YEC says. This is a debate because there are reasonable points of both sides of the issue.
"It could be argued that the YEC interpretation, as seen by groups like ICR, has been around for less than 200 years - the main reason for being that the question of age was simply not an issue. Of what use would it have been to the Israelites to have known that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth formed 4.8 billion years ago?"
Hmmm...this seems like a little stretch. If the age of the earth was simply not an issue, what do you think they believed about it? Wouldn't you say that most people believed the earth was created in 6 literal days? I know there have always been some who questioned, but most people wouldn't have thought anything other than 6 literal days because it isn't until modern times that people have had a reason to question the Bible. It seems to me that your argument weighs in on my side, which is that YEC position has stronger Biblical evidence for their position. The Holy Spirit is the Teacher, He had centuries to reveal the real length of time it took to create the world, but He left people in the dark until recently? I haven't thought this completely through, but I think it sounds like grasping for straws.
One more thing, there are inflammatory articles coming from both sides. That tends to happen in debates...I don't really find that to be a big deal. I am not justifying it, but both sides are guilty of it, so it doesn't come into play when I am trying to weigh the issues and make a decision about what I believe.
I am not sure if responding again was really the right thing to do...I wanted to give you that last word, yet here I am again. I guess I'll try to be good and let you say any closing comments without trying to argue with you. :o)
Posted by: Wendy | May 22, 2007 at 10:38 PM
LotherBot,
"I'm wary of the claim that the creation account is given "from God's perspective". I think it's more accurate to say the creation account was given so that God could communicate certain truths to His people. Both the speaker (God, through Moses) and the audience (ancient Israel) must be considered when you're trying to understand "perspective"."
You may be right. Maybe I was a bit hasty in my analysis that it is written from God's perspective. I will think about that.
"I believe God intended to provide them with a story that demonstrates how He differs from the Egyptian and Canaanite gods."
That very well could be ONE reason why he provided us with the Genesis account. He also wanted us to know what happened in the beginning. He was there, He could give the most accurate information about it. He chose to relate the story to us in a way that would have us believe (until recently) that He created the world in 6 24 hour days, I wonder why? He could have said it was long periods of time because it doesn't really matter how long He took to create the earth. The fact that He created it is amazing enough, but He CHOSE to tell us how long He took. I find that at least a little weighty on the side of young earth. You may disagree.
"What would they have gotten out of this passage? What would've popped out to them? Do you really think their first inclination would have been to try to compute the age of the earth, or do you think it would've been to say "oh wow, Yahweh is really different from the other gods I knew"?"
No, I don't think they would have tried to compute the age of the earth since there was no reason to. God already told them how many days it took Him to create the earth. By using the words morning and evening, He gave them a time frame they could relate to. They knew what morning was, they knew what evening was, they knew how long it took to go from morning to evening. I think they looked around at creation after reading the story, and were completely in awe about the power of a God who could speak something into existence. Something came from nothing in an instant. What a powerful, amazing God!
As for the ancient Jewish person walking around picturing a square earth, I think they would have understood the language enough to know that the word used for corner didn't necessarily mean a corner like a square. To say four corners of the earth was a way to illustrate the extremities. There may have been a few dim bulbs out there who would misunderstand the meaning, but my guess is that they understood the language better than most of us.
Posted by: Wendy | May 22, 2007 at 10:55 PM
God chose to use terminology of "evening and morning". But we've got evenings and mornings before we have a sun, which makes very little sense, as they are marked by sunrise and sunset. We have light three days before we have a sun or stars to make it. We have plants and trees "bearing seeds" without bees to pollenate them. To me, that weighs heavily in the direction of poetry without an intended timeline -- a parable, if you will.
Parables are stories that tell you what something is like in a particular way. They're meant to give you a feel for the way something is by communicating it in a way you can grasp. When Jesus describes the Kingdom of Heaven He likens it to a mustard seed to describe its growth, and to a pearl to describe its value. Sometimes the details in parables are significant, but sometimes they're merely flavor intended to draw you into the story. Yeast often (but not always) symbolizes sin... but do the pods being fed to the pigs in the Prodigal Son symbolize anything, or do they merely provide detail to draw you in to the story and demonstrate how far the boy had fallen?
The more I read Genesis 1, the more weighty I find the argument that the whole "evening/morning" thing is poetic; it's a way to draw you in to understand who God is through His creative power. The specific phrase "there was evening, and there was morning" is repeated six times in that passage. We don't see that same sort of construction in the narrative histories elsewhere in the Bible (compare to, for example, the plagues in Exodus.) A similar construct is used once in a prophecy in Daniel 8, but not at all in pure history. This all screams out to me "parable". When you add the external stuff (generally scientific) I simply can't hold to a YEC or OEC timeline view.
I have been accused of, essentially, "ignoring the truth of God's word" for holding this view. The best I can do is tell you, I'm doing my best to take God's teaching seriously. I'm trying to figure out what He was getting at, and when I look honestly at the text what I get out of it is "God isn't like the other gods you've heard of." As you said, He gave them a time frame they could relate to -- He took a structure of working and resting and working and resting that they already understood, and used that structure to describe Himself working to create the universe and recognizing its goodness.
To me, the understanding that God is different from the other gods, and that He would take the time to communicate that in a way that we can grasp, is the most weighty thing in the passage. The evenings and mornings, the light being created first and the sun and stars being created later, and all that other stuff strikes me as being entirely beside the point.
Posted by: LotharBot | May 23, 2007 at 02:08 AM
Hi Wendy,
Like I've said, I don't have a problem with a YEC approach which attempts to argue from Biblical (and philosophical) grounds. In many respects I agree with you, that a "natural" reading would result in the impression that the creation timeframe was 6 days (although I think that another discussion could be had on how a "natural" reading, in that context, differs from an "uninformed" reading). And I'm not convinced that a "plain & simple" reading is, by default, the standard we measure against (indeed, one would have to wonder just what all those Biblical commentaries were written for?). All the time I hear Christians using a plain and simple reading of Jeremiah 29:11 to supposedly demonstrate that God has special plans and blessings just for them... and I think that their plain reading is wrong. (also, the YEC interpretation is not without its own exegetical problems, e.g., in addition to the issue with the 7th day, the events attributed to the 6th day do not fit into a 24 hour period unless one bends over backwards - a la the criticisms frequently levied against OEC exegetical analyses.)
Where I do start having problems is with the misuse of scientific analyses in the name of Creation "Science". Notions such as dinosaurs tagging along with Noah, a water canopy enveloping the earth, the big bang being labeled as nonsense, or even the wholesale disregard for radiometric dating all strike me as propaganda (a word which was, I might reiterate, not a part of my post).
" If the age of the earth was simply not an issue, what do you think they believed about it? Wouldn't you say that most people believed the earth was created in 6 literal days? I know there have always been some who questioned, but most people wouldn't have thought anything other than 6 literal days because it isn't until modern times that people have had a reason to question the Bible. "
Well that's just it, Wendy, it wasn't an issue in cultures that had no need for such information. If asked, the Israelites may have responded that the creation took 6 days just as some people, a few hundred years ago, would have stated that the sun revolves around the earth (since the earth does not move). Ask those same Israelites how long ago the creation took place and it is very unlikely that they would have run to the geneaologies because, in their culture, geneaologies were not meant to be comprehensive; yet that is exactly how a western culture views something like geneaologies. If presented with evidence that the earth and universe are extremely old (or, that the earth revolves around the sun), then there are, essentially, three options: 1) the interpretation of the evidence is incorrect, 2) the interpretation of the scripture is incorrect, or 3) the interpretation of the evidence and scripture is incorrect. You see, with regards to the age of the earth, what's happened is that "science" and "long peirods of time - e.g., millions or billions of years" are essentially viewed as anti-Biblical. It's no wonder, then, that some people are so reluctant to entertain the notion that their interpretation of scripture is incorrect (in the same way that "the earth does not move" crowd needed to adjust their interpretation). As to the Holy Spirit and truth, I don't see this as a problem any more than it wasn't a problem to revise our understanding of the relationship between the earth and sun. It's not a matter of being left in the dark by the Holy Spirit. Consider the dinosaur - some YEC orgs claim that it is mentioned in the Bible and in ancient cultures. I think the Biblical references are sketchy, at best, but the meat of the matter is why? Why would dinosaurs have to be mentioned in the Bible when we didn't discover conclusive evidence of their existence until only 150 years ago? It's a similar concept with the age of the earth - why? Why designate such information when it was unnecessary for the culture and completely unwarranted for the salvation message? Isn't it interesting that the time we've discovered the age of the cosmos is also the time we can harmonize that data with the Biblical record?
"One more thing, there are inflammatory articles coming from both sides."
Okay, find me statements from Reasons to Believe or Stand to Reason, which refer to YEC orgs or persons, along the lines of Carl Wieland stating, "the teachings of Reasons to Believe "represent a greater danger to the church than attacks by atheistic evolutionists."" I'm not stating that all YEC think of OEC in this manner, but these are high ranking representatives of the YEC movement, and I think they are acting out of line.
Posted by: Rusty | May 23, 2007 at 12:21 PM
LotharBot
As always, you have great insights. I can relate to the "ignoring the truth of God's Word" accusation. That's the crux of the matter, I think, the notion that a certain approach is somehow ignoring or circumventing God's Word. While it is the Spirit who illuminates scripture for us, we are under obligation to actually read and study the word. How can we not read and study scripture unless we utilize the same faculties one must use to analyze scientific data? All our reading of the text is influenced by so many different factors, not the least of which is the time we happen to exist on this planet. Is it so surprising that, while Jesus' hands were scarred from the crucifixion, it was actually his wrists that were pierced? Do we drop our Christian belief because Jesus made reference to salt losing its flavor (when salt does not lose its flavor)? Is it so difficult to envision the notion that a 6 + 1, phased period outline of creation was given as a foundation for future law? Or that the two Genesis creation accounts were given to emphasize the Who and Why of creation, rather than the unimportant when? We're missing such a wonderful apologetic of the intricate complexity and wonder of God's Word by failing to embrace the entirety of creation.
Posted by: Rusty | May 23, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Rusty,
Here are some comments I found from your link to Answers in Creation. I didn't check out the Reasons to Believe website, but I figured you must regard this Answers in Creation as a valid OEC site or you wouldn't link to it. The first comment actually sounds pretty close to the comment you posted from the YEC side. Just for the record, I think any comment about old earth or young earth doing more damage to the church that anything else is ridiculous. I can think several others things that are hurting the church, not the least of which is how much sin and compromise we have allowed to seep in. If you listen to some of the arguing going on, you might think that if it weren't for what either side believed about the age of the earth, the whole world would just love us and have no problem with our theology. Ha! Anyway, I said I was going to let you have the last word, but since this is a direct question I figured you wanted me to respond.
Here are the quotes...
Over the last century, young earth creationism has done more harm to the church as a whole than any other factor. The sooner we realize that you can accept science and the Bible...the sooner the church as a whole accepts that the earth is old, the sooner we can start healing from the wounds caused by young earth creationism.
This backlash against the Christian right appears to be a direct result of the backwards thinking of young earth creationism.
Young earth creationism is taking the church into the big top, where we will all be labeled as clowns.
This deception is so blatant that I can hardly believe it comes from a PhD in Geology! This is what I would expect from a middle school student.
Young earth creationism is slowly being pushed further into a corner, with no way out. They are no longer regarded as credible by the world, and as such, they cannot reach the world with the Gospel.
The young earth implication is that God must continually tinker with the universe to make it work right, making Him into a bumbling Designer.
The Creator God the young-Earth creationists present would be a capricious, disposable, uncaring, unloving and probably dead god.
Once again, the world will laugh at young earth creationists (and in doing so, at the church as a whole), as they try to pass off their bad science as the truth. In the end, the church will suffer the most. Just as the church gave up the idea of an earth-centered universe (geocentrism), the church today needs to give up young earth creationism, and move on down the road to recovery.
When you examine the claims made by Answers in Genesis, none of their arguments for a young earth are valid. Their claims are based on half-truths, deceptions, omissions, and most of all emotions. The claims are so transparent that they only evoke laughter in the scientific community. When young earth creationists claim that a person can either believe the Bible, or believe in billions of years, the choice is obvious to the non-Christian...they must reject the Bible.
In time, the church will adapt and survive, and we will no longer be seen as anti-scientific people with closed minds.
Posted by: Wendy | May 23, 2007 at 05:55 PM
Actually, I'm not very familiar with Answers in Creation.
Posted by: Rusty | May 23, 2007 at 06:08 PM
Rusty,
Just to clarify, when I said that there were inflammatory statements on both sides, I was specifically thinking of some things I had read from following your link to Answers in Creation. Since it was your link, I had no idea that you were not that familiar with them. I honestly can't tell you about Stand to Reason and Reasons to Believe, and there isn't much point in me looking through their stuff just to find bad comments. I know you are familiar with those two organizations, so I'll just take you at your word that they don't say those things. (I'll reserve the right to point it out to you if I ever find any in the future, though! )
Posted by: Wendy | May 23, 2007 at 10:50 PM
LotharBot,
"The evenings and mornings, the light being created first and the sun and stars being created later, and all that other stuff strikes me as being entirely beside the point."
This is something I cannot agree with. When Jesus likened the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed, He said it was LIKE a mustard seed. He didn't say it was a mustard seed. We can understand that He didn't mean to call it a mustard seed by the context. Genesis 1 is full of "Then God said" and then He "saw that it was good." Definite order of events there. It's not a mere side issue, as you seem to be saying. If it was a parable, He could have said, "The creation of the world was LIKE this." But He didn't. He said that in the beginning He was there, He did these things, in this order, in this amount of time. Then in Genesis 2 it says it was the account(NASB) or history(NKJV) of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
You may not agree with me, but it doesn't change the fact that a VERY reasonable argument can be made that the at the very least, Genesis 1 says the order of when things were created, even if one does still think the days were long eons of time. He created something and it was so, THEN He called it good, THEN He created something else. I don't think we're supposed to shuffle around the order of events to fit someone's scientific model of the way they think things should occur.
Posted by: Wendy | May 23, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Wendy,
Please do point out anything untoward you find at RTB or STR.
We've been down this road before, so I think we can exit here (for now). As you know, I've got some items to get prepared for the upcoming Open House.
Think of this post (and my March post) as my way of venting. It's extremely frustrating to see what I perceive to be an obtuse reaction to scientific conclusions, some of which are just as valid, if not more so, than many everyday things that everyone readily accepts; it's all the more frustrating when such a point of view is couched as, essentially, being the default "purist" approach.
Posted by: Rusty | May 23, 2007 at 11:16 PM
"so I think we can exit here (for now)"
Rusty,
Agreed. It's been a good discussion and you, as always, have said some challenging things worth considering. I wasn't trying to make the OEC position seem unreasonable and the YEC position the "default purist" approach. My intent was just to point out that there are reasons for why I believe the YEC position best lines up Scripture. I know that the comment you made to the person we both know and love was made in jest, and that it wasn't meant to insult. Sometimes it's tiring to hear the YEC views being labeled as backwards and ignorant, as if there are no good reasons to be YEC. There are some very intelligent people who disagree about the age of the earth, and I think there are good reasons to hold each position.
So...I got this Calvinism article in an email...wanna discuss it?
Posted by: Wendy | May 24, 2007 at 08:04 AM