That would seem obvious, but it seems most YECs now accept change in species over time, within “kinds”. “Change over time” is the scientific minimalist definition of evolution, so that makes them evolutionists! And many accept Darwinian (and other variants of) microevolution, ie within species or perhaps somewhat larger limits. BUT they reject universal common ancestry and Darwinian processes applied beyond “kinds”.
Ah, yes - the variation in how “evolution” can be defined. Thanks for the refinement.
I’m not sure this is true anymore. Some YEC groups allow hyper- speciation of the animals released from the ark in order to explain where all the species came from!
[ I see I’m late with this comment. I salute @Jon_Garvey ]
How does ANY book… purporting to describe actual events allow some of it to be rejected? Do we reject the various bios of George Washington as soon as we find reports of the story that he chopped down the cherry tree within Them?
I might not track with every single point you’re wanting to make here, but I certainly agree that there are nuances which deserve consideration.
The Bible doesn’t tell you everything. The people who wrote it had no idea of the vast age of the earth and when they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit He had no way to convey that information to them. The only record we have of knowledge being transmitted from God to man is when God speaks to a prophet about a future event. I don’t think we have any cases of a prophetic past being given to man.
Also remember why we have the Scriptures. They are to “to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”, 2 Timothy 3:15. The age of the earth is not a salvation issue, unless you are Ken Ham, so I wouldn’t expect to find anything related to the age of the earth just as I wouldn’t expect to find anything on quantum mechanics.
First let me ask what it is you believe that prevents an old earth from being correct.
The only way to get a 6,000 year old earth is if you make the assumption that the ages of people and the genealogy presented is done in the precise, Western style. With this assumption the age of the earth question is settled. Now approach this using the eyes of the authors of the OT. They often used honorific ages for their ancestors. The didn’t consider it lying it was just the way it was done. Also realize that B could be considered the son of A when A was actually the great-great-great-grandpappy of B. Don’t overlay the Ancestry.com way of doing family history on the Bible. It just doesn’t fit. And as I have mentioned before any history before Abraham is before the invention of writing. Any history had to be passed down orally over thousands of years. While the Holy Spirit did inspire the writers in what they recorded it is still just a written version of oral history.
2 Likes
I’m not sure how to take your answer, but my invitation was sincere. I’ll paraphrase it: I currently see the Bible disallowing a billion-year-old earth. Of course, I don’t see it doing so in explicit terms; rather, it’s the implication of the chronology it seems to lay out. I’d genuinely be open to someone explaining to me how to read the Bible in such a way that it would allow for a creation of the earth 4.543 billion years ago. I was not trying to make a rhetorical point.
1 Like
My experience, @Mike_Gantt, is that the solution you seek is a very personal matter:
-
Some (like me) allow the Bible to have factual errors… just like any other wonderful book 3000 years old might have.
-
Some say that ultimately there are no errors, but the resolutions may not be knowable (So far OR Ever).
-
Only texts that bind on theology are without error, but even then, (2) above may apply.
But, frankly, we read non- fiction books all the time … even with errors. The Evangelical position that there can be no errors is untenable.
(Obviously, this is my personal position and cannot be ascribed to BioLogos.)
Agreed.
I wouldn’t either.[quote=“Bill_II, post:135, topic:36078”]
The only record we have of knowledge being transmitted from God to man is when God speaks to a prophet about a future event. I don’t think we have any cases of a prophetic past being given to man.
[/quote]
Was David’s evil past or future when God revealed it to Nathan?
By the way, which is easier for a human being to get right: history or prophecy? Are we to consider the prophets reliable on what’s harder but unreliable on what’s easier?
I am not an apologist for Ken Ham, but I think I’ve heard him say multiple times that he doesn’t believe the age of the earth is a salvation issue.
Even granting that OT authors should not be held to the Associated Press Stylebook or the Ancestry.com user guide, I find it hard to figure out how their imprecision could cause them to be off by 4,542,994 years - which would mean that the time they do not account for is over 750 thousands times greater than the time they do account for.
I say all this not to argue for a young earth but to explain to you the hump I’ve got to get over to embrace an old earth - that is, this is where I need help. I am not saying that I’m unwilling to believe in a 5.543 billion-year-old earth; I’m only saying that imprecise genealogies seems inadequate for a discrepancy that large.
Nevertheless, if this sub-thread on age of the earth has turned unproductive, I’m fine with abandoning it. I started this discussion with a request for a reconciliation of the Bible and evolution and I’m happy to stick to that.
George,
You answer here is particularly helpful because it identifies the kind of BioLogos person who cannot answer the request I made at the launch of this topic.
I do not like the doctrine of inerrancy because it seems to always tilt the conversation to trivialities. Nevertheless, many people would call me an inerrantist.
Similarly, I do not consider myself a YEC because, among other things, I differ from them in my inability and lack of desire to argue science issues.
What brought me here is that I hear what feels like almost the whole scientific world - if not the majority of the world itself - telling me that I should believe in evolution. So I came to the place where people profess a love of Jesus and an acceptance of evolution. BioLogos is, in effect, saying to me: Even Jesus believes in evolution!
I can bear the thought that the world thinks I’m foolish. I cannot bear the thought that Jesus thinks I am. If evolution is the way Jesus does things, I want to believe it.
You cannot help me. I see that. It’s not because you love Jesus less than I do; it’s because you think I’m expecting too much from the Scriptures. Maybe you’re right. Maybe no one at BioLogos can help me, but I’m going to give it another day or two.
I would say by recognizing the timetable that the Scriptures seem to imply. You can say Ussher got carried away with inferring a degree of precision that was never implied, but I don’t see how anyone can say that his fundamental notion that a timetable was implied by the text was absurd.
Jon,
I read the article and don’t have any particular problem with it…unless it results in Genesis 2:1-3 being stripped of meaning.
The pattern in Genesis 1 is clear: doing, doing, doing, doing, doing, doing - then Genesis 2:1-3 says, essentially, no longer doing. I can see how people quarrel about the length of day a lot easier than I can see completely ignoring the doing-not doing transition.
Your response seems quite reasonable; your hopes, however , seem destined to disappointment.
Even YECs, content with their view of the Bible, are denied the expectation that the Bible will give a good explanation for why Science betrays them.
There really is no GOOD explanation for this conundrum. And yet millions of Christians are simultaneously satisfied with their view of Jesus as God … and a Universe where God employed Evolution to accomplish His ends.
What kind of carpenter will you be? One who refuses to finish a cabinet because the pieces he has will not fit the design he has in his head?
Or will you set aside an ill-fitting piece so that he can complete 95% of the Ark of his hopes and expectations for an Eternal Life to come?
As for what hermeneutic, @Christy recently pointed me in the direction of Kevin Vanhoozer. I’ve been doing a bit of reading on him lately, and his Introduction (“What is Theological Interpretation of the Bible?”) to the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible is a fairly close approximation of my views. (You can read Vanhoozer’s Introduction with the “preview” feature.) I suppose you could call it the grammatico-historical approach leavened with a healthy dose of respect for the typological approach of the apostles and church fathers, which is heavily Christo-centric (seeing Christ in all of Scripture).
As far as triggers to know when to apply a primarily figurative interpretation, the author will provide sufficient clues. As for Genesis, commentators are virtually unanimous in identifying stylistic differences between the Hebrew of Gen. 1, Gen. 2-11, and Gen. 12-50. This is one clue. There are many others, but I am short of time, so I’ll have to apologize for my incomplete response.
1 Like
As to the age of the earth, even if one takes the 7 day creation story as literal, it does not speak to cosmic age as it starts with:
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
This appears to be before the 1st day. While I do not particularly agree with the view that it relates to age of the earth and universe, it certainly opens the door to great age before the 7 day creation story.
Even if I packed the vast majority of the 5.543B years into Gen 1:1-2, I’d still feel uncomfortable ascribing the remaining tens of thousands of years to imprecise genealogies.
Thanks. No apology necessary.
I should add, though, this portion of my original post:
If your hermeneutical answer is to interpret Genesis 1-12 figuratively, you are at the same point as the homebuilder who says he’s going to make his house with this material instead of that - that is, you still have to build the house. I continued to be surprised by the number of people content to have chosen the material, but don’t think it’s necessary to finish house.
All my work on trying to reconcile evolution and the Bible is to help in this life; I’m not expecting it to be an issue in the next.
2 Likes
Perhaps you misunderstand my analogy? The “Ark” of one’s hope is for use in this life. Must we abandon the whole furnishing just because all the pieces do not fit perfectly together?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hugh Ross found a verse for every one of these scientific ideas, but that’s not what I’m looking for. I distinguish evolution from the ideas in your list because it implies history, and it is this history I am interested in trying to reconcile with the Bible’s history.