Young Earth vs Old Earth

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GoodTreeMinistries.com

Puritan Board Freshman
Was wondering how people that hold a old earth view get that view using the Bible. Would not a natural reading of Genesis bring a person to a young Earth view? If God created the Earth in 6 days, then you count back how many days through genealogies to Adam there are, does not this show the Earth is young?
 
I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.

Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?
 
thbslawson said:
I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.

Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?
Click to expand...

What is the evidence from the Scriptures themselves that the six days are to be understood metaphorically?

The sun is created on the fourth day? Anything else?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
I don't see in the Bible that atoms can be split or that they even exist. Cells must not divide. There's not a word about it in scripture. What I do see is that God created all things and that all of his creation brings glory to Him. As one of those who were created with a commission to name the critters and gain dominion over the earth I see a great encouragement to observe, learn, and marvel at what has been wrought by my Father's hand.
 
thbslawson said:
I would consider myself an historical creationist and an "old earther." I believe Scripture supports that view. See John Sailhamer's view.

Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?
Click to expand...

Well we know your not using the bible. If your not "caving to science", what are you doing?
 
Peairtach said:
What is the evidence from the Scriptures themselves that the six days are to be understood metaphorically?
Click to expand...
I second that. To me the Genesis account of creation is crystal clear! Jesus too says in Mark 10 V 6 that man was from the beginning of creation! So how long has man been on the earth I ask old earthers? Millions of years? Its contradictory to what the Bible, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit teaches us.
 
thbslawson said:
Why must so many YE's immediately jump to the conclusion that OE's are caving to science?
Click to expand...

Because no one ever thought of things like the Gap Theory or the Day-Age Theory or the Literary Framework Theory prior to science deciding that the Earth was old. The truth is that if science had never decided that the Earth was billions of years old, no one would read Genesis the way that OE's do, therefore it is a conclusion brought about by a presupposition.
 
It is simply not the case that modern science alone has suggested a length for the duration of the creation days that may be other than 24 hours each. A variety of rather significant pre-Enlightenment ecclesiastical figures have variously speculated with respect to the question of the length of the creation days.

While I think that ordinary days is arguable on several grounds, we must not misrepresent the history here and the specfic question of the duration of the days has been disputed among men within the same confessional tradition. Bob Letham's article showing such diversity is helpful (http://www.meetthepuritans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Letham-Creation.pdf) as is the report of the OPC: http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf.

Peace,
Alan
 
Dr. Strange,

I agree with the rest of your post, but respectfully, I don't think the conclusion that such diversity is helpful is correct. Teaching the sheep that the Church is confused as to what Scripture teaches regarding the six days of creation will only minister confusion. They will rightly wonder how they can then trust anything in Scripture if "For in six days God created heaven and earth" (Exodus 20:11) cannot be taken to be an accurate statement on its face. This will only lead to confusion and doubt, and it has done so. I am grateful that my denomination - while respecting brethren who disagree - requires all Church officers to subscribe to the teaching of the Westminster Standards that God created all things "within the space of six days" (LC 15). Respectfully, it is not the case that other views are within the limits of our doctrinal standards. The six-day creation view is explicitly endorsed by the Westminster Confession and both Catechisms which accompany it.

Edited to add: While I'll leave this post up for the points it makes in general, please see below where I realized (HT: Hamalas) Dr. Strange did not actually say such diversity is helpful, but only that an article demonstrating the existence of such diversity is a helpful article.
 
Last edited:
To be clear: Dr. Strange did not say that such diversity is helpful but rather that Letham's demonstration that such diversity has existed (at least in some fashion) is helpful.

In regards to the OP there are a couple of challenges that this question raises. First, you have asked specifically about why people might hold to an old earth. This question, while often related, is not necessarily tied to one's views on creation itself. In other words, someone could be an ardent creationist and could even hold to a literal six days and still hold to an old earth. So it is important not to impute views or motives to people just because they believe in an old earth. Second, the terms old earth and young earth are not here defined and are thus, somewhat unhelpful. Does old earth mean 100,000 years or 4,000,000,000? Third, amongst those who hold to an old earth view there are distinct positions or "camps" within the old earth perspective. Each of these camps has a slightly different view and gets there in different ways. Thus, there isn't necessarily just a list of Scriptures that are standard in discussing this issue. The day-age theory, the "gap" theory, the analogical view, and the framework view all have their own distinctives and their own take on Scripture.

If I read your OP aright you want to understand how and why people could believe in an old earth. To get a good feel for these different camps and to answer that question I would recommend reading either the OPC or PCA papers on the subject (which Dr. Strange linked to above).

Just to lay my cards on the table: I am a young (i.e. 10,000-100,000 year) earth creationist who believes that God created the universe in six literal days. I'm just trying to explain why the question you asked might be more complicated than it seems. :)
 
Hamalas said:
To be clear: Dr. Strange did not say that such diversity is helpful but rather that Letham's demonstration that such diversity has existed (at least in some fashion) is helpful.
Click to expand...

Oops. You're right. I completely misread the grammar of the statement. He meant the article is helpful, not the diversity per se. My apologies, Dr. Strange.
 
Austin:

Thanks for catching what I said. I wish for as much unity as possible.

It simply is the case that on several issues--length of days, psalm-singing, etc.--there has come to be within confessional Presbyterianism (though perhaps not in some communions, like yours, and others reflected here) some allowed diversity, construed either as being within confessional bounds or as a permitted scruple (or exception, as the PCA terms it) to the Standards.

This, in partial response to another post, is why there is not simply one denomination of confessional Presbyterians. Desirable but not at any cost, as I think you yourself said. And I think that it was Wayne Sparkman who posted Bob Godfrey's "Reformed Dream," with which I've always had considerable sympathy and thought a good step toward greater unity.

Peace,
Alan
 
Hamalas said:
Just to lay my cards on the table: I am a young (i.e. 10,000-100,000 year) earth creationist
Click to expand...

Wait, that's not young, that's old earth. Or how do we determine what is old and young, and how old is old? :)

I think we all agree the young earth view must be the historical young earth view of 4,004 BC or pretty much there abouts.


My view is 4,004 BC. If I am wrong, with generation gaps in genealogies if they are there (I don't think they are) then I'd say it could go as far back as 10,000BC or so. But I don't hold that view. I believe there are not gaps in the genealogies because of the very specific genealogies, thus right around 4,004BC.
 
Romans922 said:
Hamalas said:
Just to lay my cards on the table: I am a young (i.e. 10,000-100,000 year) earth creationist
Click to expand...

Wait, that's not young, that's old earth. Or how do we determine what is old and young, and how old is old? :)

I think we all agree the young earth view must be the historical young earth view of 4,004 BC or pretty much there abouts.


My view is 4,004 BC. If I am wrong, with generation gaps in genealogies if they are there (I don't think they are) then I'd say it could go as far back as 10,000BC or so. But I don't hold that view. I believe there are not gaps in the genealogies because of the very specific genealogies, thus right around 4,004BC.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point Elder Barnes. :) Considering that when most people refer to an old earth they are talking in terms of millions, or more often billions, of years 100,000 years would still be quite young. However, just to clarify, if you pressed me on my view I believe the earth is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old. For me the 100,000 (which is sort of a number that I just pulled out of thin air) is what I might allow for the possible genealogical "gaps" if they do in fact exist.

So 10,000 is my personal view, while 100,000 is the absolute outer limits of which I could possibly be convinced.

I hope that's clear as mud.
 
Alan D. Strange said:
It simply is the case that on several issues--length of days, psalm-singing, etc.--there has come to be within confessional Presbyterianism (though perhaps not in some communions, like yours, and others reflected here) some allowed diversity, construed either as being within confessional bounds or as a permitted scruple (or exception, as the PCA terms it) to the Standards.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but issues like EP, millennial views, etc. require a great deal more hermeneutical understanding and care than six-day creation. Differences in interpretation on these matters are easy enough to appreciate. Differences on whether God created in six days border more on rejection of Scriptural teaching. My church recites the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:1-17 every Lord's Day in the morning service. I can't imagine being an advocate for OEC, and week after week after week reciting, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it," without facing an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance. How does one recite that verse with a straight face every Lord's Day and still honestly maintain that God did not create in six days?

For a confused layman to believe in OEC is one thing, but for a minister it is another. We need instructors that are competent in the basics of exegesis. A man who is so learned that he holds a convoluted interpretation of Scriptural teaching on creation may be very learned indeed, but he is up in the clouds where he is of little use to those of us on the ground.
 
Alan D. Strange said:
It is simply not the case that modern science alone has suggested a length for the duration of the creation days that may be other than 24 hours each. A variety of rather significant pre-Enlightenment ecclesiastical figures have variously speculated with respect to the question of the length of the creation days.

While I think that ordinary days is arguable on several grounds, we must not misrepresent the history here and the specfic question of the duration of the days has been disputed among men within the same confessional tradition. Bob Letham's article showing such diversity is helpful (http://www.meetthepuritans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Letham-Creation.pdf) as is the report of the OPC: http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf.

Peace,
Alan
Click to expand...

Letham's article was a point of discussion on the PB.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/lethams-space-six-days-66140/
 
au5t1n said:
Alan D. Strange said:
It simply is the case that on several issues--length of days, psalm-singing, etc.--there has come to be within confessional Presbyterianism (though perhaps not in some communions, like yours, and others reflected here) some allowed diversity, construed either as being within confessional bounds or as a permitted scruple (or exception, as the PCA terms it) to the Standards.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but issues like EP, millennial views, etc. require a great deal more hermeneutical understanding and care than six-day creation. Differences in interpretation on these matters are easy enough to appreciate. Differences on whether God created in six days border more on rejection of Scriptural teaching. My church recites the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:1-17 every Lord's Day in the morning service. I can't imagine being an advocate for OEC, and week after week after week reciting, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it," without facing an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance. How does one recite that verse with a straight face every Lord's Day and still honestly maintain that God did not create in six days?

For a confused layman to believe in OEC is one thing, but for a minister it is another. We need instructors that are competent in the basics of exegesis. A man who is so learned that he holds a convoluted interpretation of Scriptural teaching on creation may be very learned indeed, but he is up in the clouds where he is of little use to those of us on the ground.
Click to expand...

Amen!
 
It seems that two separate questions are being discussed on this thread.

The first question is the one raised by the OP: "how people that hold a old earth view get that view using the Bible?"

The second question which has since emerged is: "Is it biblical (or even) acceptable to hold to such a view?"

Both are worthwhile questions but it seems to me that the focus on the second takes away from an understanding on the first. Perhaps the author of the thread could clarify if he wants us to address both questions or only one.
 
Hamalas said:
It seems that two separate questions are being discussed on this thread.

The first question is the one raised by the OP: "how people that hold a old earth view get that view using the Bible?"t

The second question which has since emerged is: "Is it biblical (or even) acceptable to hold to such a view?"

Both are worthwhile questions but it seems to me that the focus on the second takes away from an understanding on the first. Perhaps the author of the thread could clarify if he wants us to address both questions or only one.
Click to expand...
I am most interest in Bible verses that prove the point. Just trying to understand how when using the Bible only how a person can hold to a Old a Earth view?
 
GoodTreeMinistries.com said:
Just trying to understand how when using the Bible only how a person can hold to a Old a Earth view?
Click to expand...
If by "using the Bible only" you mean that "the Bible teaches the earth is old," I don't think you will find someone who holds to that. While there is admittedly a great diversity of views for those who hold to an old earth view, perhaps one commonality among most if not all of them is that the Bible does not teach whether the earth is old or not. This is the point that will be Scripturally argued. Of course, since it is a universal negative in form, the argument tends to take the form of (1) rebutting arguments used to show the earth is young and (2) showing that the words of Scripture themselves allow for an old earth view (I include the Framework view in this category since it is arguing from Scripture that the narrative does not speak to this issue).

Then, once it is claimed that the Bible does not teach a particular view of the earth's age and so allows for other ages, the person of this persuasion will point to science to show that the earth is old. Hence, the position is not biblical but scientific (though I suppose there are some who appeal to passages that state things like God laid the foundations of old, and then argue that a few thousand years isn't old enough to be consistent with those passages; it will be interesting to see what those you have asked for verses will come up with.).

There is a little more nuance here though. The old earth view will argue that (1) we can trust scientific findings because God has made us to explore the Creation and has given us functioning senses and reasoning ability, (2) because science is so reliable, if it has been proven to be true, then our interpretation of Scripture must be in error, and we will need to correct our understanding of Scripture, and (3) we cannot pit science, reason, or the senses against Scripture because we use them/need them in interpreting Scripture anyway. Sometimes, these points are made the plank of arguing for an old earth view rather than additional considerations.

The first point is what some old earthers believe is being compromised by those who hold to a young earth view: that science isn't evil, and that we can figure out and scientifically prove stuff about Creation.

The second point can take various forms, sometimes sounding harsher ("We should re-interpret Scripture by science") and sometimes sounding more friendly ("Our understanding of Scripture must be in error, let's try to understand it better"). Others on the second point will simply say that if the Scriptures could be interpreted in another manner more consonant with science that has been proven true, then we should look for one of those other interpretations as the correct one. Others will say that if Scripture cannot be interpreted in another way, then science must be incorrect (that it must not be "true science").

On the third point, the general idea is that if we use science in understanding Scripture to begin with, then we might as well use it in this issue too, since it has been proven true scientifically and "all truth is God's truth."

At any rate, it seems to me these three points turn the question into a hermeneutical one of how and when science may be used to interpret Scripture. This might explain how they arrive at and the motivation behind their views that the Scriptures do not teach about the earth's age, but I guess it isn't the same as their "biblical argument" you were looking for: that Scripture does not take a stance on this matter. I suppose though that the interpretive questions do answer why the "natural reading" of Genesis is believed to be incorrect by some who hold to an old earth view.


Edit: Googling Sailhamer turned up these: http://creation.com/unbinding-the-rules
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land
http://5solas.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/genesis_unbound_critique.pdf
http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2011...onism-of-sailhamer-in-genesis-unbound-part-1/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top