Preterism & Creationism

[Guest]

It is a common claim. And I have no doubt that some people start out with a view of scripture first and then look for science to back it up. But from a historical perspective, "The Genesis Flood" that popularized this view was more science than theology. As the science erroded away, they leaned more and more on the proposed reasons of why the Bible taught a young earth, but that is not how it started out.

The fact is that interpretation of the Bible changes. Looking at the historical context of what causes that change is a very interesting study. I recomend a book called "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers. You can't really answer "what happened first" kind of question without the historical context.

So, you debunk the whole claim because of some creation scientist who abused the claim? Aren’t you generalizing here?

You are right. Something that looks old doesn't have to be old. But maybe, with a few exceptions, it looks old because it is old. Remember how Darwin thought that once people found more fossils that they would fill in the missing links? It never happened. Back when "The Genesis Flood" swung people over to a YEC interpretation, geology was really the only science that was saying that the earth was old. They countered the geology with "well, the flood could have...." kind of arguments. They then proved the hypothesis by showing dinosaur and human footprints in the same rock. It was very convincing. It was like DNA. Pretty much a "slam dunk" of evidence. To top it off, there was the claim about the "cutting edge" findings of only thin layer of dust on the moon when an old universe would have had feet upon feet of it. That pretty much "buried" the OEC interpretation. Of course we now know that those were not human footprints and the moon dust argument was so bad that it never should have been made to begin with. For some reason though (and I have my ideas), the YEC interpretation stuck even though the foundation of its case was really cripled.

I’m glad you agree that the appearance of something doesn’t necessarily make the claim whether it is old or young. So, what makes you think the earth is old, other than the way it looks?

Is half a truth communicating the truth? If I only looked at the Book of James, I could take some specific verses and talk about how our salvation required works. But would that be the truth? It may be "literal" based on a specific verse, but without the context of the rest of the Bible would be out of context and communicating a conclusion that was incorrect. I've personally heard sermons about how man is so special because God spoke everything else into existance, but formed man out of the dirt with special care. Did he form Adam out of the dirt? Of course. But the text tells us that He also formed other animals out of the dirt.

I guess we are just arguing semantics here because if I said God spoke everything into existence than that would take under the assumption that God spoke and then man came from the dirt into existence. Of course I would disagree with a sermon that separated man from the animals in your example because that would be incorrect. Keeping to your example of salvation I could say, like many sermons I have heard, that we are saved by grace and not by works. However, nothing was mentioned about faith without works is dead. It’s not that the first sermon is wrong or telling a “half truth” it is just not as thorough or complete as maybe someone may like.

Maybe He knew that His Leviticus audience would understand the pattern and it didn't have to be stated again while the Exodus audience needed to be reminded of some basics. I don't know.

It still seems like a weak argument because God restated his work week example in Deuteronomy chapter 5 and again in Leviticus 23. Also, as another side note in every example of the 6 work days and the 7th work day off he is comparing his work week with man’s work week. In the year example (Leviticus 25:1-4) he is discussing the land and not people.

I'm not sure that it is "mixing up" the days in the sense that they are out of order as much as it is a belief that the formation of one thing on one day may not have been complete before that day was up. Again, I'm not defending that position, only explaining it.

Interesting. Not sure how one would conclude that from straight reading of the scriptures. Anyway, interesting theories.

I was referring to the statement that plants require sun, birds, and insects. They do now. They may have then. But if they didn't now, would they have had to then? Who knows. Given popular claims of everything lived forever and nothing deteriorated before the fall, a lot happened then. Some even claim that you could hear the stars.

Isn’t that like saying, 'Did man ever run?', even though it isn’t stated in Genesis. My only beef with the animals eating other animals is that scripture tells us they were given plants to eat. Don’t you think it would be strange to mention one and not the other?

I don't know of anyone that claims that man died before the fall. There are some that hold that other non-human primates existed before the fall and died like other animals, but they don't believe that they were human.

Doesn’t Ross hold that view of non-human primates? Why also would one hold that view anyway? Isn’t the reason for non-human primates because evolution teaches that they are our ancestors? It also seems odd that God would create all these animals, call them good, and then allow them to become extinct before man even has a chance to look at them.

But see our outside worldview is one of those outside things that "helps" us interpret Scripture. It is easy to see when it is someone else's worldview that doesn't jive with our own. This quote is a perfect example. What verse "plainly" says that animals had no fear of humans ("us" as you put it) until after the flood? Noah was just told that he could eat the animals that he had spent the last year caring for. I'm sure that they had gotten used to him and his feeding them. It is a good thing that they were now afraid of him. Caused them to scatter and survive. But we have this global worldview of the creation story and a global worldview of the results of the fall and a global worldview of a flood and so forth. If God was telling Noah that these animals we going to be afraid of Noah, bit not necessarily all of mankind forever, could it have been worded the same? Violence pre-dates the flood. Do you think that was limited to people or that animals were not smart enough to think of self preservation?

Here is the verse:

Genesis 9:2 - 2"The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.

I can’t tell you when animals became violent, but in Genesis 9 God does say he would require man’s lifeblood from every beast. So, that seems to imply that the animals at least had the ability to kill for meat at that point.

Sometimes I am not as clear as I think...because thinking is difficult for me (I'm medically disabled with, among other things, memory and concentration issues). My point was that some people claim that since Adam was given permission to eat any fruit in the Garden that God planted that he only ate a vegetarian diet. Noah was told that he could eat the animals that he had had on the ark. Some hold that this means that no one ever ate meat before that. But there is a parallel between the "be fruitful, multiply, have dominion" kind of charge that God gave Adam and the one that God gave Noah. Maybe they were both given the same charge, but one has more detail than the other. Not saying that is the case, but it could be.

Well here is the verse in question:

Genesis 9:3 - 3”Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.”

If God already allowed humans to eat meat then this verse isn't statesd very well. It shows God is using the present tense “give” to state now you can have meat and he uses the past tense “gave” to state that this is what I originally meant for you to eat. If man was eating meat before this than don’t you think God would have said “I give all to you, as I gave the green plant and some beasts”?

Let me tell you a story that I relate in the beginning of my Genesis lecture series. In the early 1900’s, my grandparents and great-grandparents were ridiculed and held to scorn for their devout literal interpretation of the Bible. Geologist and other scientist of the day were making all kinds of claims about the earth. They held their ground though and, as Ken Ham would say, properly interpreted the world through the glasses of their Bibles. Luckily, they went to a government-funded church-based school that was not influenced by the “enlightened” public schools around them. To this day, the legacy of this strong belief in the Bible can be found on the Internet. An easy search will find the references to the organization that, to this day, stands firm against the so-called advancements in science. You know it as the Flat Earth Society, located in Zion, IL. That’s right. Less than 100 years ago, my ancestors were taught that the earth was flat. The Bible said it was. To look at scientific evidences to the contrary was to take your eyes off God and place them on the fallible interpretations of man. In effect, you were compromising with the world. My point is that we all use our worldview to interpret Scripture. It isn't always bad.

It’s funny they would say the scripture is flat when it tells us it was round.

Isaiah 40:22 - 22It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

However, if the bible claims one thing and the evidence states a completely opposite opinion than I can either:

1. Redifine Scripture
2. Claim Scripture is false and find truth elsewhere or
3. Believe that the scripture is telling the truth and wait till further evidence comes out to support it.

If we allow for the redefining of scriptures, than in my opinion we become no better than the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses. They both feel they have the truth based on evidence. They use their worldview to redefine scripture…what makes them any more right or wrong than us? We have to take what the Bible is clearly teaching, and either reject it or accept it, not change it. If God meant long ages than he could have worded it far better than he did without all the confusion.

I'd feel very uncomfortable doing so if it were not for Romans 1. I will agree that it isn't the same. But I can't agree with interpretations that "not the same" means some kind of polar opposite. As far as the snake goes, whether or not it was a "snake" is a totally different subject. If you want to get discuss that, we can, but lets take it to a seperate thread. The idea of Eve having less painful childbirth before the fall is also an interesting topic. Had it already happened? Hmmmmm....

I agree it is not the polar opposite, but isn’t adding stuff in just pure speculation seeing how nobody was there to see it all take place except God? The ramifications of children before the fall would be huge and would make Romans chapter 5 confilicting.

Could Adam and Eve reproduce before the fall? If reproduction was necessary for continuation of the species, why would perpetual humans be told to be fruitful? Could it be that the death that came to Adam and Eve as part of the curse was a spiritual death, and not a physical one? Current "nothing decayed before the fall" interpretations say no. But does the text force a "both" interpretation when it might only be one? Again, foder for another topic.

Yes, fodder for another topic, but I believe both spiritual and physical deaths are implied.

Sorry, for the delayed response, but having a wife, two children and a dog does keep me busy in the real world. Take care…it definitely has been a pleasure chatting with you.

[Guest]

So, you debunk the whole claim because of some creation scientist who abused the claim? Aren’t you generalizing here?

I'm not saying that any particular interpretation is wrong. I thought the question was the origination of the view. Disqualifying a view beacuse of its source is a genetic falacy. I try to stay away from those.

I’m glad you agree that the appearance of something doesn’t necessarily make the claim whether it is old or young. So, what makes you think the earth is old, other than the way it looks?

I don't remember saying that I thought it was old. I can tell you the OEC position though. I'm familiar with arguments from both sides. I like the YEC interpretation, but feel that some of the OEC arguments stand up to better scrutiny. If I was going to be a full-blown YEC, it would have to be in spite of a lot of the evidence offered for that position.

Interesting. Not sure how one would conclude that from straight reading of the scriptures. Anyway, interesting theories.

I'm not quite comfortable with it either.

Isn’t that like saying, 'Did man ever run?', even though it isn’t stated in Genesis. My only beef with the animals eating other animals is that scripture tells us they were given plants to eat. Don’t you think it would be strange to mention one and not the other?

If I give you something, does that make it the only thing you have?

Doesn’t Ross hold that view of non-human primates? Why also would one hold that view anyway? Isn’t the reason for non-human primates because evolution teaches that they are our ancestors? It also seems odd that God would create all these animals, call them good, and then allow them to become extinct before man even has a chance to look at them.

Ross does hold that view. Since we have pimate skeletons (think cave-man or smart-ape), one has to explain them somehow. Both YEC and OEC have to come up with an explanation. They don't have to be our ancesotrs for the skeletons to exist. Since they don't exist now, did they die in the flood? Before the flood? Were they on the ark? Every interpretation has to deal with the evidence.

Genesis 9:2 - 2"The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.

But who is it addressed to? Is "you" referring to Noah, or all of his decendants? Does the text force a plural/global interpretation?

If God already allowed humans to eat meat then this verse isn't stated very well. It shows God is using the present tense “give” to state now you can have meat and he uses the past tense “gave” to state that this is what I originally meant for you to eat. If man was eating meat before this than don’t you think God would have said “I give all to you, as I gave the green plant and some beasts”?

Good point. Personally, I don't have a real big problem with either interpretation. I think think that the text could be interpreted either way though.

It’s funny they would say the scripture is flat when it tells us it was round.

Isaiah 40:22 - 22It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Aren't circles flat? There are also references to "four corners". Trust me. People really did believe this based on a Biblical interpretation. Their interpretation changed when their worldview of geography changed.

However, if the bible claims one thing and the evidence states a completely opposite opinion than I can either:

1. Redifine Scripture
2. Claim Scripture is false and find truth elsewhere or
3. Believe that the scripture is telling the truth and wait till further evidence comes out to support it. If we allow for the redefining of scriptures, than in my opinion we become no better than the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses.

But my grandparents and their parents DID believe that the bible claims one thing and the evidence states a completely opposite opinion. Was option 1 the wrong choice?

They use their worldview to redefine scripture…what makes them any more right or wrong than us? We have to take what the Bible is clearly teaching, and either reject it or accept it, not change it.

The Bible didn't get changed by my Grandparents and Great-grandparents. They were devout christians who travelled literally half-way around the world because of their religious beliefs and wanting to be in an environment where their beliefs could be practiced. The Bible stateds the same thing now that it did back in 1906. The difference is not in the Bible, but in the interpretation of what is "clearly" teaches. As our worldview changes, our interpretations change.

If God meant long ages than he could have worded it far better than he did without all the confusion.

That argument has been made and answered before. Want to hear the response to that? The following is from Christian Apologist, Robert Bowman:

The advocates of the young-earth view have a response to this line of reasoning. They claim that Old Testament Hebrew had a word which was perfectly suited for indicating long periods of time, the word 'OLAM. The fact is, however, that the word 'OLAM never means an age or epoch! A careful examination of its usages reveals that it can mean, first of all, "forever" (Gen. 3:22; 21:33; etc.). Secondarily, the word can mean "long time," not in the sense of an "age" or "era," but in the context of indicating the duration of some condition. For example, Deuteronomy 33:15 speaks of the "ancient" hills; Psalm 77:5 of "the years of long ago"; in Jeremiah 18:15-16 it is used to mean both "ancient" and "perpetual." Thus it turns out that 'OLAM is completely unsuitable for expressing the idea of an age, era, or epoch.

At the very least, there seems to be some disagreement over the very ability to have worded it better.

The ramifications of children before the fall would be huge and would make Romans chapter 5 confilicting.

Why? Why would "sin came to all men" have to force conception after the fall?

I believe both spiritual and physical deaths are implied.

If both ocurred upon sin, how do you explain the phrase "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"? Either "the day" turns into some period of time (which opens up a lot of problems for YEC), or they died spiritually that day.

[Guest]

My primary interest to date has been in the scriptural arguments for the OEC/YEC debate. I am also interested in the technical/scientific arguments for the both sides, but I have not yet spent as much time examining these arguments. For the most part, the article you referenced is concerned with scientific rather than scriptural arguments. I commented below on some technical aspects where I believe Morris makes some illegitamte criticisms, particularly in regard to aspects of Humphreys cosmology. I am not familiar with all of the technical arguments covered here, so I have chosen not to make comments on some of the items. (However, someday, hopefully I'll have time to look into each one in detail.)

from Chapter 1 "Sarfati seems to think his interpretation of Scripture on this issue is necessarily superior precisely because it was not accompanied by an honest look at the scientific evidence."

I think the reason Sarfati and other YEC's consider scripture superior to science is rather that it is propositional revelation.

from Chapter 1 The idea that science or nature might legitimately cause one to ask if his interpretation is correct is said to be 'fallacious reasoning' and 'bordering on post-modernism'"

I don't think this is a fair representatino of Sarfati's position. My understanding of Sarfati's position is that the scripture in this particular case has provided sufficient reason to be certain about the interpretation of the passage - namely, that in Genesis 1 yom is 24 hour day to the exclusion of all other meanings of this word in its semantic range. In my opinion, if science questions that conclusion, then it is fine to examine whether that interpretation is correct. At this point in my examination of the subject I remain unconvinced that the OEC position is a feasible position with respect to the scriptures.

Dr. Sarafati makes a comment about "bordering on post-modernism" which Ed Morris challenges. Ed replies, "OECs do not deny that there is any such thing as objective truth, nor do they say that the Scripture can legitimately be given any interpretation, as Sarfati's charge implies." Niether Dr. Sarafati or Ed are as specific as I would like in these general statements. Words do, in general, have a range of possible meanings (a semantic range). A principal OEC argument seems to be that if a word can have multiple meanings (i.e. yom) then we can never be absolutely sure which of these meanings is the right interpretation for any given instance where this word is used. That is, there is always some very small chance our interpretation is wrong. I don't buy this argument, because I think the context does place definite limits on what particular meaning a word has.

from Chapter 5 But what about the alternative assumption that Humphreys is forced to make, namely that the earth is at or very near the center of the universe? This hardly seems likely to me, given that we know for a fact the earth is not even anywhere close to the center of our own galaxy. Furthermore, the earth orbits the sun. Humphreys' cosmology depends on the center of the universe initially containing a white hole that the earth had to emerge out of last. It seems preposterous to assume that the center of the universe orbits around the sun, which is presumably why Humphreys says the earth may only be 'near' the center. But in that case would not the actual center of the universe in fact be younger than the earth?

IMO, Morris is making fallacious arguments here. First, Humphreys theory does not require that the center of the universe remain co-located with the position of the earth through all time. His theory only requires that at one point in the past (I think Humphreys proposed Day 4) a white hole was centered in the general area of our solar system. So his statement "It seems preposterous to assume that the center of the universe orbits around the sun" is irrelevant. Second, the issue of where the earth is relative to the center of the galaxy or the sun is again irrelevant to where the center of gravity of the universe is (or where the centerpoint of the white hole is).

From Chapter 6 In other words, [Gen 1:29-30] cannot be taken in a completely literal sense, for then it would be saying that all plants (large and small, aquatic and non-aquatic, etc.) were eaten by all animals, which is clearly not the case. So it must be a generalization.

I disagree that it is infeasible to take this passage literally as is suggested above. Morris has brought the assumption in that every animal eats every plant, which the text does not say. Rather, it seems that all plants are eaten by some animals and all animals have a diet consisting of some plants. The command only states that any animal is permitted to eat any plant, not that every animal must eat every plant. Since this seems to be a universal command about what can be eaten, it does seem very strange indeed that the eating of other animals is not mentioned if that was permitted.

From Chapter 11: Decay of the Magnetic Field It is apparently true that such convection currents could affect the magnetic field. But so what? Why should we believe this alternative theory?

Morris seems to neglect that Humphreys theory is more plausible because it explains rapid reversals, whereas the OEC models of magnetic decay apparently do not.

From Chapter 11: Helium in the Rocks But why on earth should we believe Sarfati's claim that the best explanation is that the alpha-decay rates were faster in the past? Would it not be far more likely that it was the helium diffusion rates that were slower in the past-especially given that helium diffusion rates are not even constant but are dependent on such things as temperature, as even Sarfati acknowledges? (Note Sarfati's misapplication of uniformitarianism again.

I must be missing something here, but how is Sarfati misapplying uniformitarianism here? Second, there is a reason to prefer one explaination over the other - namely that the varying decay rates apply to an empirical model, whereare diffusion rates are based upon first principles. That is diffusion rates are a conseqence of mechanical vibrations of molocules which are a consequence of physical laws that relate inertia and acceleration, force and deformation (i.e. Newtonian principals). Proposing differing diffusion rates is tantamount to proposing that such aforementioned laws were different in the past. I doubt anyone YEC or OEC really wants to go there.

From Chapter 11: Missing 'Old' Supernova Remnants But I must say I am really amazed at Sarfati's inconsistency in even bringing this argument up as evidence for his position! Why? Because Sarfati himself argues in chapter 5 for Russell Humphreys' 'white hole relativistic cosmology' explanation of the universe. This is a theory which, like the Big Bang theory, says that supernovae are old, not young!

This might be a valid criticism. The reason I say 'might be' is that the criticism lacks consideration of scale. Remember, the earth, solar system, galaxies, galaxy clusters, and the universe all differ in size by orders of magnitue. Humphrey's cosmology predicts that the age of the universe increases with the distance from the white hole center point (near our plant or solar system). The criticism is dependent on the notion that our milky way galaxy is billions of years old, when in fact Humphreys model would yeild a much younger age for our galaxy in particular. Since the context of Sarfati's argument is about SNR's in the milky way galaxy, I suspect Morris's criticism is overstated. On the other hand, if Sarfati did not take into account the age of the galaxy and light travel per Humphreys theory, his calculations would also be in error.

From Chapter 11: CometsMy response to this is exactly the same as my response to the previous argument.

Mine too

Chapter 12

Morris argument for OEC in this chapter is the geologic column. I am not well read on this subject, and as it is a very broad subject it is a massive project to examine it. I would like to study this more, but since I have not yet carefully studied both sides of the issue I don't feel qualified to comment one way or the other on these observations.

[Guest]

I don't buy this argument, because I think the context does place definite limits on what particular meaning a word has.

This statement deserves a prize. It is so foundational to this issue and can be made of any argument made by either the traditional YEC approach as well as the traditional OEC approach. I spend a lot of time on this in my Genesis lecture series. Since words can have different meanings, the context that we see it used is the way we see it being defined. As Wiki defines it, "In Biblical Studies, context indicates the harmonious relationship of the scripture verse(s) or potion of text under study following after the rule of the “text within the context”. It should abide by a scriptural sense of bearing a close relationship with the immediate passage when trying to determine the meaning of the scriptures. The context of scriptures also should follows the aim and purpose as observed by the original writer with a view toward imparting scriptural truth to the actual audience."

But "context" is derived by more than just the sentence or book that the word belongs to. Since the text in question is both Biblical and historical, both contexts apply. It is the context of the percieved history of the world (as percieved by the reader) that usually tips the balance in cases like this. That is why I found darin-houston's coverage of the presuppositional apologetic approach to this topic so fitting. If you hold an opinion on the age of the earth and approach the discussion of that topic with that worldview, the context of "your world" as you understand it presupposes a particular interpretation of a word or phrase. Without solid evidence to the contrary, again judged by your context or worldview, you accept the approach that matches the world as you know it to be by default.

Personally, it was only after I approached this subject with a pretence that I had never heard it before or made any conclusions about it that I really appreciated the strengths of the different sides. Unfortionately though, most Christians are not an objective, impartial jury weighing the evidence in this case. If they didn't already have their mind made up when they walked into the courthouse, they generally made up their mind before an opposing case was ever made.
D.

[Guest]

If both ocurred upon sin, how do you explain the phrase "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"? Either "the day" turns into some period of time (which opens up a lot of problems for YEC), or they died spiritually that day.

Those two are not the only options, DJ.

"In the day you eat it, you shall surely die," may mean that in the day you eat it, the death process will begin.

[Guest]

If both ocurred upon sin, how do you explain the phrase "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"? Either "the day" turns into some period of time (which opens up a lot of problems for YEC), or they died spiritually that day.

Those two are not the only options, DJ.

"In the day you eat it, you shall surely die," may mean that in the day you eat it, the death process will begin.

I agree. More to the point, wouldn't being kicked out of the garden (that contained the tree of life) constitute the beginning of the death process? In other words, without the tree of life, you will surely die.

[Guest]

Those two are not the only options, DJ.

"In the day you eat it, you shall surely die," may mean that in the day you eat it, the death process will begin.

I agree. But in the strict "literal day" approach, no one gives Hugh Ross the latitude of saying "well maybe the process just started on that day". I'm just trying to be consistant here. "Day" has to be 24 hours or it doesn't. Since we know that Adam lived longer, it influences our interpretation of "day". Yet somehow it is not allowed to "know" other things that would effect the interpretation of "day" in other places.
D.

[Guest]

As Moses said in Psalm 90.4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past,and as a watch in the night."

Moses the writer of Genesis says a thousand years to God are like a watch in the night or 3 hours to us. Not meant literally but another example that a day to God is a period of time not necessarily 24 hours.

Even in the 24hr day scenerio there would be death before man sinned even on a microscopic level or in the insect kingdom.

[Guest]

If I give you something, does that make it the only thing you have?

It does if that is the way God commanded it. Did Moses have the option to speak to the rock or hit the rock?

Ross does hold that view. Since we have pimate skeletons (think cave-man or smart-ape), one has to explain them somehow. Both YEC and OEC have to come up with an explanation. They don't have to be our ancesotrs for the skeletons to exist. Since they don't exist now, did they die in the flood? Before the flood? Were they on the ark? Every interpretation has to deal with the evidence.

True.

But who is it addressed to? Is "you" referring to Noah, or all of his decendants? Does the text force a plural/global interpretation?

To me it’s global. At that point Noah and his family represented all of mankind. I think it is the same as when God said to Adam and Eve “be fruitful and multiply”. He didn’t mean it just for them, but for all of mankind.

Aren't circles flat? There are also references to "four corners". Trust me. People really did believe this based on a Biblical interpretation. Their interpretation changed when their worldview of geography changed.

Their interpretation wouldn’t have had to change if they didn’t use verses that were dreams or visions to define the world around them. It’s like me telling someone not to write in your bible because that is like writing on Jesus (Referring to John 1). Doesn’t make sense and would make me wrong. I shouldn’t have to go to the printing press to find out my interpretation is wrong.

But my grandparents and their parents DID believe that the bible claims one thing and the evidence states a completely opposite opinion. Was option 1 the wrong choice?

If evidence helps them get the correct interpretation of scripture that is fine, but like I mentioned above, one does not need it if you can read literature the way it is meant to be read. Like reading context properly to define words and know when the bible is making an analogy or speaking of visions. I also believe that if someone helped your grandparents on the correct reading of scripture than maybe they wouldn’t have needed outside evidence for interpretation. Then when someone brought them outside evidence it would only support the correct interpretation of scripture.

The Bible didn't get changed by my Grandparents and Great-grandparents. They were devout christians who travelled literally half-way around the world because of their religious beliefs and wanting to be in an environment where their beliefs could be practiced. The Bible stateds the same thing now that it did back in 1906. The difference is not in the Bible, but in the interpretation of what is "clearly" teaches. As our worldview changes, our interpretations change.

Or could it be…as our knowledge of how to read scripture changes our interpretations change? Isn’t the whole debate over how to read the word ‘yom’ and not so much the evidence at hand? If the Hebrew word ‘yom’ could only mean a literal 24 hour day than OEC couldn’t bring enough evidence in the world to change the meaning.

That argument has been made and answered before. Want to hear the response to that? The following is from Christian Apologist, Robert Bowman:
Quote:
The advocates of the young-earth view have a response to this line of reasoning. They claim that Old Testament Hebrew had a word which was perfectly suited for indicating long periods of time, the word 'OLAM. The fact is, however, that the word 'OLAM never means an age or epoch! A careful examination of its usages reveals that it can mean, first of all, "forever" (Gen. 3:22; 21:33; etc.). Secondarily, the word can mean "long time," not in the sense of an "age" or "era," but in the context of indicating the duration of some condition. For example, Deuteronomy 33:15 speaks of the "ancient" hills; Psalm 77:5 of "the years of long ago"; in Jeremiah 18:15-16 it is used to mean both "ancient" and "perpetual." Thus it turns out that 'OLAM is completely unsuitable for expressing the idea of an age, era, or epoch.
At the very least, there seems to be some disagreement over the very ability to have worded it better.

Aren’t there more words than just ‘OLAM that can be used? Like shanah or dor.

Why? Why would "sin came to all men" have to force conception after the fall?

Romans 5: 18 –
18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
If there was a child before sin entered the world, than that child would have been born without sin, making verse 18 a contradiction? Why would that child need justification if they have no sin?

If both ocurred upon sin, how do you explain the phrase "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"? Either "the day" turns into some period of time (which opens up a lot of problems for YEC), or they died spiritually that day.

The phrase you quoted I believe points to a spiritual death in which we need Jesus Christ in order to become alive again.

Here is the physical death part (Genesis 3:19) –

19By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return."

The physical death came through the curse. The spiritual death came through the choice to disobey God and follow their way.

[Guest]

If I give you something, does that make it the only thing you have?

It does if that is the way God commanded it. Did Moses have the option to speak to the rock or hit the rock?

I plant a garden. Pretend I have a green thumb and it is a wonderful garden. You come to my garden. I tell you that you can eat of all the fruit and vegetables there, but don't touch the kiwi. How is that a "command" that you can eat nothing else? ???

But who is it addressed to? Is "you" referring to Noah, or all of his decendants? Does the text force a plural/global interpretation?

To me it’s global. At that point Noah and his family represented all of mankind. I think it is the same as when God said to Adam and Eve “be fruitful and multiply”. He didn’t mean it just for them, but for all of mankind.

I agree that it can be interpreted that way. But when we get to heaven and find out for sure, will you protest that "you" could not have referred to Noah alone if that is the case? It can be inferred that since some animals are afraid of us now and since God told Noah that his ark full would now be afraid of "you", that "you" means today as well. It might be true, but it is a weak argument. What about all the animals that are not afraid of us?

Aren't circles flat? There are also references to "four corners". Trust me. People really did believe this based on a Biblical interpretation. Their interpretation changed when their worldview of geography changed.

Their interpretation wouldn’t have had to change if they didn’t use verses that were dreams or visions to define the world around them. It’s like me telling someone not to write in your bible because that is like writing on Jesus (Referring to John 1). Doesn’t make sense and would make me wrong. I shouldn’t have to go to the printing press to find out my interpretation is wrong.

I'm not defending their interpretation. It was wrong. But it was based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

If evidence helps them get the correct interpretation of scripture that is fine, but like I mentioned above, one does not need it if you can read literature the way it is meant to be read.

Like a literal approach?

I also believe that if someone helped your grandparents on the correct reading of scripture than maybe they wouldn’t have needed outside evidence for interpretation.

Very unlike having Ken Ham, or Hugh Ross telling us how different things force the text to be interpreted different ways.

Then when someone brought them outside evidence it would only support the correct interpretation of scripture.

I beleive that all outside evidenvce, properly interpreted, will support the correct interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is perfect. Our interpretation of it is not guaranteed to be so. Many people do not see the difference though.

Or could it be…as our knowledge of how to read scripture changes our interpretations change?

That is the case as well. Check out this picture:

Notice his head? When Michelangelo did the statue of Moses, the Hebrew word used to describe his countenance after seeing God was thought to be interpreted as "horns". It's a literal depiction, but literally wrong.

Aren’t there more words than just ‘OLAM that can be used? Like shanah or dor.

I don't know Hebrew, so I have to look it up. "Shanah" is " to repeat, do again, change, alter". It is used only one time in Genesis, at Gen 41:32. "And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." "Dor" is defined as "generation" and is never used in any of Moses' writings.

Why? Why would "sin came to all men" have to force conception after the fall?

Romans 5: 18 –
18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
If there was a child before sin entered the world, than that child would have been born without sin, making verse 18 a contradiction? Why would that child need justification if they have no sin?

But you are interpreting "all men" to be "all subsequent men". Sin entered into the world "my one man". Did that pass to Eve? The text never says that she is equally guilty of sin and sin entered because of both of them. Eve ate. Adam ate. Then the eyes of both were opened. Seems like Adam's sin ttriggered something. Eve's eyes were not opened until after he ate. IIt is an interesting avenue to explore in light of our preconceptions of what took place.

The phrase you quoted I believe points to a spiritual death in which we need Jesus Christ in order to become alive again.

Here is the physical death part (Genesis 3:19) –

19By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return."

The physical death came through the curse. The spiritual death came through the choice to disobey God and follow their way.

The verse I was referring to had to deal with the timing. Did death occur "in the day" that they ate? I believe spiritual death occurred when their "eyes were opened". It was not a process that just began "in the day". I think physical death is less clear. What is the "because" phrase here. Did Adam "die" because he ate? Or is he returning to the ground because that is where he originated? I don't really know that the text supports an interpretation of "by the sweat of your face you will eat bread and you will now return to the ground..." That is what I was always taught. It was taught just as dogmatically as "in the beginning, God created". But when I put aside my preconceptions and started looking at the text without already knowing what it said, some things were not as clear as I had originally thought. Since Adam didn't face the thorns and painful toil until he was kicked out of the garden, could it be said that he didn't start to physically die until then either if physical death is a new thing being introduced by this text and not just referred to? Could his physical demise be related to the fact that he no longer had access to the tree of life? I think the case could be made for that.

One other thing to note is to look at how God handles the description of new things in the Bible. He went to great detail to describe the ark, something new to Noah. He went to great detail describing the construction of the temple, something new to Moses. Adam was introduced to all the animals and named them. He was taught how to cate for the garden. But in Genesis 3, God doesn't explain to Adam or Eve what pain is, what death is, what sweat is. I know it is an argument from silence, but it looks like it is worded in such a way that the people in the conversation already have some knowledge of what is being discussed. The terms and concepts are not new to them. That is just the feeling that I get from it. Does it make any sense to beleive that God said, "If you disobey me, you will die. Now I know that you have no concept of the consequences and have never heard of it of seen it before, but I expect the consequences to deter you anyway even though you have no clue what they are." It is this kind of thinking that leads to the weird Gnostic beliefs related to the fall in which teaching Adam the knowledge of (or experience of) good and evil is a good thing. God was "keeping things" from them.
D.

It is easy to push the text too far though. It is like the claim that it never rained before the flood. I'd been taught it. Even said it myself. Then I tried to find a verse that clearly said it. OOPS!
D.