As far as discernment to know whether to look for hidden meaning or larger context, I think one has to determine whether that which is being conveyed relates to a present time or the future/past. Can you point to a prophesy which was literally written? I don’t believe any thing foretold in scripture has been literal.

Now then, take commandments or instructions for building the temple or the ark. Both are “here and now” terms relating to how we are to act or what we are to do – in the present. Nothing in holy scripture which is obviously literal deals with conveying past or future events from God’s lips to man’s ears.

I’ll say this – God is so great, so multi-faceted, so glorious – his written word is layered with meanings within meanings and parables within parables. There are historical accounts of ancient Israel which are parables for all time. Cities and defending cities can be read and understood as spiritual instruction for building and guarding our own lives and families!

As for the issue at hand, understand that I am also sympathetic to YEC – indeed, it is the evidence for OE that lead me away. However, having now read some of Setterfield’s stuff on his web page (http://www.setterfield.org), I’m beginning to think perhaps the evidence for OE might not be so conclusive after all.

I mean, if light is really slowing down, then decay rates and other universal constants are also affected and our calculations are meaningless suppositions from a perspective which has nothing upon which to fix a position! I plan on reading more of Setterfield’s stuff from his web page (there is a great deal of data) and looking to see if his critics are as insubstantial in their criticism as Darwin’s cultists usually are!

I’m not wedded to OEC, it just seems to fit what our(my) senses tell us. I know better than to make doctrinal book on it, which is (I think) Sal’s main point in this thread. My salvation does not rest upon the Genesis account being literal. Praise God!

So, my prayer is that we and our brothers and sisters in Christ do not major on minor stuff and instead glory in Christ, building each other up in the faith, yielding our selves to put on the life of Christ. The kingdom of God is now – and we will miss it if we are too busy condemning each other for having unique perspectives on the literalism of certain scripture. I pray not that your eyes be open, gently or otherwise, but that we both love the truth enough to be humbly wrong. That we learn and incorporate the lesson of the Pharisees – it is easy to miss God when we are not aware how frequently human understanding suffers from lack of perspective.

Like the inference of common descent – why cannot the same evidence of commonality be evidence of a common designer? The answer is, that it can, because it is philosophy (a formalized viewpoint lens) which informs the inference!

Anyhow, it has been a pleasure discussing this with you!

regards,

Todd

Thanks for the clarification. It is not your view, then, that the Jewish leaders misunderstood the Scriptures entirely but rather overlooked the spirit as they focused on the letter. If that’s a better summary of your perspective, then I would certainly agree.

As for the other issues, I’ve already responded to the idea that God communicated in a way to accommodate a limited perspective, such as we’re suggesting Moses would have had.

Prophecy is another issue–and, I think, a rather complex one. The Jewish leaders weren’t entirely unjustified in expecting a King; however, they missed the parts about the suffering Servant. Also, it must be admitted that Jesus provided them with plenty of evidence that he wasn’t merely a megalomaniac seeking to arrogate divine prerogatives. As he said, “Which is easier–to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or to say ‘Get up, take your mat, and walk’?” Whether reading people’s thoughts, multiplying food to feed thousands of people, raising the dead, etc., Jesus provided much evidence to justify taking a serious look at his claims. This evidence wasn’t “only” in the form of miracles, either, but in his teaching. When the Jewish leaders sent a contingent to arrest him, they returned “empty handed.” Questioned, they responded, “No one ever spoke as this man does.”

I don’t believe it was primarily because of a misunderstanding of messianic prophecy that the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus but because of a refusal to bow before a God who called them on their cherished sins rather than pamper their national pride and kick butt on the Romans.

You probably don’t expect me to be particularly impressed by the “misunderstood prophecy” argument, and you’re right. I can think of at least a couple of specific points against it. For one thing, the Jews did not entirely misunderstand. They weren’t wrong to expect a King. For another thing, prophecy is a good deal more complex in content than is the creation account. We have Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11, for instance, telling us that God created our world in six days. We don’t have any other reference where he speaks of these days as representing vast ages of time. Also, the context of the six days is pretty much literal and was generally accepted as such until the Church bought the line that “science” had proved otherwise.

As for Jesus speaking in parables, you’re right. In fact, in the gospels it says that that was pretty much his preferred method of teaching. However, he not only taught in parables, he also gave their meaning. So today, we don’t have to debate over how to interpret, say, the parable of the Sower or of the Good Samaritan. Also, we know that God often communicated in very literal and specific language. A handy example is the instructions for building the tabernacle that God gave to Moses. Also, while Jesus taught that such commands as “do not kill” and “do not commit adultery” go well beyond overt physical acts, this certainly doesn’t detract from their literal meaning.

I guess it comes down to this question: does God communicate to us in a way that we can understand, or must we look elsewhere to try to determine what he “really means”? I would regard the latter as problematic, since it would suggest that we can’t be certain of anything God has said, unless we have some source of independent evidence against which to check our understanding.

Now, having said all that, I acknowledge that I’m highly biased in favor of YEC and that I believe myself clever enough to pick holes in most arguments I disagree with, as long as they don’t depend on specialized knowledge I don’t possess. Since I’m convinced that YEC is the only biblically consistent approach, it’s probable that, while I think I’ve carefully considered it, I’ve not subjected it to quite the scrutiny I would apply to something I was desirous of disproving.

As a brothers in Christ I trust we can both live with the fact that we happen to disagree on this issue? If you do feel that my perspective is potentially damaging, you could probably do no better than pray that God will gently nudge me to open my mind to something better.

Best regards,

Rick

One of the things occurring to me when I think on my layman’s understanding of natural forces, especially as it relates to cosmology and relativity, is the question of what the expanding mass of the big bang’s singularity had on space and time. If space-time is warped by gravity, what properties did it have when all that matter was packed so closely together?

I googled Setterfield and found his website and his summary of his theories. Fascinating stuff – my eyes were opened to the impossible position we find ourselves in relation to space and time!

Rick,

That about sums it up, but for one point. I don’t say the Pharisees and scribes completely misunderstood scripture. I say they created an image of God the Messiah as King. Remember when Israel demanded God reveal himself at the beginning of their 40 years and he did in a pillar of fire, admonishing them to not make an image of him – this is both a literal and figurative warning. One the Pharisees failed to heed. The Cornerstone had become a stumbling block, fulfilling prophesy…

0——-1000–fld–2000——-3000——-4000——-5000——-6000—(Christ rules 1000yrs; rest?)
Present (2006AD) ^
^Christ & Church appear(Jesus bride)
Note: Jesus “I am the light..”; Church reflects Christ.
^ Approx. End of Ice Age (ice melts). Vegetation and land RE-appear.
^ Earth flooded with the waters from above and below (not good!).
^ Adam died at 930 years old – God said he would die the day he ate the fruit.
^End of creation week and Adam sinned (ate the fruit). Man now knows Good and Evil.

Interestingly, this all seems to line up with Genesis 1:

[0----Day 1][----Day 2][----Day 3][----Day 4][----Day 5][----Day 6][--Day 7 Rest)
^ Man and animlas created.
^ Sun Moon (greater and lesser light) created.
note: Sun is light to world; moon reflects that light.
^ Land and Vegetation appear.
^ God seperated the waters above & below (Day 2; the only day in Gen1 not said good!)
^ Heaven and Earth created (earth was void). Light called to be.

There are many other parallels, but this is a pobably a fair overview. I'm not sure if this formated properly.. but I will hope so. Also, with the above, consider the scripture... a day with God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day

Saxe:

On a side note, it is interesting that “day” in Hebrew is never associated with a long period of time when an ordinal adjective (i.e. the sixth day) is associated with it.

Please consider the following passage.

Hosea 6:2

After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.

This Hosea prophesy is normally interpreted as “not 24 hour” periods, though the same word for day is used as in Genesis 1.

Yet another example of YEC presenting questionable “facts” as gospel truth.

bFast,
I don’t think this passage from Hosea is necessarily anything other than a normal earth day. I personally do not know the passage well enough to comment more, but appranently there are some direct challenges to this by AIG (perhaps it is prophetic to the resurection of Christ – or a normal three days):

“People like Genesis re-interpreter Hugh Ross try to make out that Hosea 6:2 is an exception. However, when one correctly understands the prophetic nature of this passage and how the word day is used here, one has to accept that it means an ordinary day, or the prophetic passage wouldn’t make sense. (For further information on this, I refer you to the book Creation and Time: a report on the progressive creationist book by Hugh Ross by Van Bebber/Taylor, page 74.) “

http://www.answersingenesis.or.....08_104.asp

“Some say that Hosea 6:2 is an exception to this, because of the figurative language. However, the Hebrew idiomatic expression used, ‘After two days … in the third day … ,’ meaning ‘in a short time,’ only makes sense if ‘day’ is understood in its normal sense. See Ref. 1, pp. 74–5, for a more details. “,

http://www.answersingenesis.or.....xdays2.asp

“Guest:… we’ve talked personally about some of these things, and yet this is directed because we do have some differences. And so Dr Ross, with, in relation to the word yom used in the Old Testament, 359 times it is linked with a number, numerical index. All but a few times, like Hosea 6:2, it refers to a literal 24-hour solar day.

Ross: Sure.

Hosea 6:2 ‘After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence’ is no exception. This verse exhibits a particular kind of Semitic poetic parallelism of the form X / X + 1 (cf. Job 5:19; Proverbs 6:16; 30:15,18; Amos 1:3, 6, 9). So it must be interpreted according to the specific context, so that ‘two days’ and ‘three days’ mean that God’s healing of the broken Israel, promised in the previous verse, will occur in a short time. In fact, Ross’s ‘exception’ reinforces the literal day interpretation, because if these days were millions of years long, the restoration would not exactly be quick.

http://www.answersingenesis.or.....alysis.asp

There is a cryptic reference to the resurrection of both the nation of Israel and also her Messiah in Hosea 6:2: “After two days will He revive us: in the third day He will raise us up.” Also note Zechariah 12:10: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son.”

http://icr.org/article/815/

Thoguh, there seems there could be a double entendre from this even.

I might add myself, even though it was not a numerated day, that there is a prophetic passage of scripture that read something like ~can a nation be born in a day?~ And indeed, Isreal was born on one normal day in 1948. Yet, it might even be thought of as a long day…anyway…

OEC’s might want to consider the study done by ICR on narratives in the Bible versus peotic passages. It shows that Genesis 1 is heavily narrative (ie. not poetic but more literal) under a certain quantified examination of the text.

http://www.icr.org/article/24/

Close-up view of chart image:
http://www.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-377b.gif

“I’m deeply concerned that all the ill-will being generated in the Christian community between the camps is preventing more dispassionate inquiry of the issue. It is extremely difficult, even for a YEC sympathizers like me to dialogue with certain YEC communities because I’d be labeled a heretic.”

This makes sense–and I can well imagine that it tends to leave a bad taste that reflects negatively on the entire camp. It seems to me it would have been easy for you, under such circumstances, to simply focus on contrary evidence instead of having to agree that such people might actually be right to some degree.

“The attitude that OECs are heretics is so strong in the Westminster Presbytery, that if they had their way they’d likely put the rest of the church leadership on church trial for not being YECs and excommunicate them out of office.”

As much as I think OEC is untenable biblically, treating such people in this way is entirely uncalled-for and reflects a loss of Christian perspective.

“I think YEC would get a warmer reception if some of the main institutions were not so abrassive and condemning of their OEC brethren, but rather welcoming and encouraging.”

Yes. Here, I think is one of the areas where that human frailty you mentioned earlier comes into play. If as a Christian, one believes one’s position is supported by the Bible, it’s easy to excuse abrasiveness as perhaps something akin to “righteous indignation.” After all, Jesus wasn’t exactly “nice” when calling the religious leaders hypocrites. Nor were such as Paul or John the Baptist. I can’t speak for another’s motives, but I see in myself far more of a desire to prove I’m right than to show someone else a better perspective because of my esteem for him or her as a human being.

Certainly, it’s important to combat ideas that undermine the Bible. Indeed, Scripture commands this. At the same time, Scripture also tells us that without charity, it all amounts to nothing. This is not to deny that charity may well be expressed in words of rebuke; however, unfortunately, it’s far more natural for us to “rebuke” without charity.

On reasons for skepticism, “It does not make YEC true in and of itself, but I became enormously more distrustful of institutional science after re-examining the data.”

You’re right: such things don’t make YEC true. However, the biggest–perhaps the only–reason why YEC isn’t simply taken for granted by a lot of Christians is because of the pronouncements of science and, in some cases, the efforts of theologians to accommodate. If we find good reason to distrust these pronouncements–and it seems we have–it makes less and less sense to seek refuge in efforts to harmonize the Bible with science.

I appreciate dialoguing with you, Salvador.

Rick

Thanks for your explanations of your position. From the way you write, I perceive that you have some interesting perspectives.

I’m going to try a step that I usually omit in a discussion like this, and attempt to summarize what I understand you to be saying, rather than simply respond.

First, you point out that the Jewish leaders so completely failed to understand their own Scriptures that they rejected and murdered their Messiah. If this was possible, how can we be certain we understand the Scriptures ourselves?

Also, when the Scriptures speak on matters relating to time, we must remember that, while we ourselves are time-bound, God is not. This accentuates the possibility for misunderstanding on such matters.

When Jesus came, he often spoke in parables rather than in literal language when teaching eternal principles. This being the case, is it not possible that he also revealed the creation account in a parable, rather than literally?

As for Moses, it seems questionable that he would have been capable of comprehending the age of the cosmos as we have now come to understand it. To accommodate Moses’s limitations, God gave him a creation account that he could grasp and communicate to the rest of us. This account should therefore not be taken in a literal sense–except perhaps beyond the mere fact that God is the Creator.

I know this doesn’t cover all the details you brought out, but does it appear to you to fairly represent what you’re saying?

Rick

Regarding my skepticism, let me share a little experience I had in 2004. I had done a little exploration into the amino-acid racemization states of various fossils made available to the public.

I concluded the data may as well have been pulled out the air, including the data published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a certain Reiner Protsch. Turns out he did pull the figures out of the air, just as my examination of the differential equations relating to amino-acid racemization indicated.

Similar developments occured with thermodynamic profiles of the Earth and other planets, or violations of our basic understandings of celestial mechanics. And I could go on for days. It does not make YEC true in and of itself, but I became enormously more distrustful of institutional science after re-examining the data. Furthermore, watching the inquisitional tactics in institutional science to enforce false orthodoxies, it does not make one’s heart exactly warm to everything the orthodoxy has to say.

Salvador

I’m wondering if it’s partly because of your skepticism that you lean toward YEC.

That is correct!

The reason I lean toward YEC is the brute facts are beginning to confront Old Earth. In 2000 I was an OEC. But I said, I could accept YEC if:

1. Big Bang disproven
2. Speed of light was much faster in the past (as it would solve the problem of long term radiometric dating and distant starlight in one felt swoop)

That was my position prior to reading any of the YEC literature I am especially enthusiastic about today. I would accept YEC if thats what the brute facts indicated it.

Then in 2002 some major developments:

1. Many scientists came forward and openly questioned the Big Bang including three scientists from my school, one of them a PhD physcist from MIT, Menas Kafatos, and head of George Mason’s Center for Earth and Space Observation Research and chairman of the department of Computational Science. See: http://www.cosmologystatement.org

2. Paul Davies publishes a finding suggesting the speed of light was much faster in the past in the prestigious scientific journal Nature

When that happened, I said to myself, the major hurdles may have been over come, the rest are the details….

However, I’m deeply concerned that all the ill-will being generated in the Christian community between the camps is preventing more dispassionate inquiry of the issue. It is extremely difficult, even for a YEC sympathizers like me to dialogue with certain YEC communities because I’d be labeled a heretic.

I wouldn’t be exactly welcome by the YECs in the Westminster Presbytery, but I would be in D. James Kennedy’s presbytery. This is a very unfortunate situation, and that is why I linked to the letter of concern by my Presbytery. The attitude that OECs are heretics is so strong in the Westminster Presbytery, that if they had their way they’d likely put the rest of the church leadership on church trial for not being YECs and excommunicate them out of office. Thankfully for me, Westminster Presbytery is in the minority in my denomination, and for now I’m safe….

I think YEC would get a warmer reception if some of the main institutions were not so abrassive and condemning of their OEC brethren, but rather welcoming and encouraging. OECs should be hoping the YEC succeed, but at it stands, the ill-will is so strong at times, some of them almost hope the YECs are wrong because of the ill-will that has been sown.

In that regard the writings of Walter Brown and Barry Setterfield have been welcome because they throw the character and issues off the table and focus on the physical facts.

I highly recommend visiting http://www.creationscience.com to see an ID-type approach to creation science. It is very much in line, I think with mine and jonnyb’s approach.

Great to hear from you, Rick.

Salvador

“Even I as someone sympathetic to YEC, who cherishes the faith I have accepted, have a great deal of distrust of theologians as much as scientists or any one else, even myself! The frailty of human nature is something I am too aware of…”

I appreciate your affirmation of sympathy to YEC. I also tend at times to be distrustful of the “experts.” While I do question my own conclusions and reasoning, I’m afraid my mind is the only one I’ve got; and if I can’t use it effectively, including by interaction with other people, I figure I’m pretty much up the proverbial creek.

“For myself, a very simple epistemology of brute facts work for me. If nature tells us she is young, I will be inclined to accept it. Nature will give us clues to what we need to know. Without that hope, there is no science.”

I agree–though I have a lot more trust for science concerning the present than science concerning the remote past. For one thing, hypotheses about the present can be debugged by testing and observation. With the past, though, one has to make assumptions that probably can’t be tested. Therefore, while one can certainly make educated guesses, if there were crucial conditions in history that bore heavily on one’s hypothesis,
how would one know?

Also–unfortunately–we’ve seen evidence that certain ideas outside of mainstream science have a lot of trouble getting a fair hearing. Caroline Crocker’s experience is a prime example of what can happen when someone dares even slightly challenge the status quo on evolution. We saw, too, what happened to Richard Sternberg when he allowed Meyers’s article to pass through the peer review system. How, then, would one expect evidence challenging the conventional age of the earth and universe to be promulgated in mainstream venues?

Nature may well tell us she is young–but where would we expect to learn of this?

“The reason I thought ICR’s version of YEC was distasteful was “the appearance of age” arguments.”

I don’t tend to find “appearance of age” arguments persuasive, either. I don’t believe God gave his creation a misleading appearance. I also don’t believe he gave the Scriptures “misleading appearance.” The difference is, while we can all read the Bible for ourselves, most of us must rely on someone else to tell us things pertaining to the age of the earth and universe. Since the current thinking is that both are billions of years old, it should probably be assumed that evidence to the contrary wouldn’t be deemed “good science” and that the public would be unlikely to hear about it through public channels.

“Setterfield’s hypothesis, if true would mean all the laws of physics will point to that genealology. Theologically this would be a great development, and would be higly symbolic, however, it’s my nature to be reserved and skeptical.”

I’m not familiar with Setterfield’s hypothesis, though I believe I’ve read that it has to do with the speed of light and represents an effort to explain distant starlight in a manner consistent with YEC. He may or may not be right, and he’s also not the only vendor in the marketplace.

I’m wondering if it’s partly because of your skepticism that you lean toward YEC.

Rick