"Our supposedly eminent Bible scholars are now going on record to say that we must subordinate the authority of Scripture to the higher and more objective standard of secular science."

[Aaron Blumer] Well, I’m seeing assertions repeated, but not substantiated.

Have Waltke and Enns gone down the wrong road or too far down the right one?
Do we, or do we not, use “scientific” data in the interpretive process? Mike D. seems to concede that we do. Not clear on where RPittman or P Scharf are on that one.

As for the AiG work on Galileo, I don’t doubt in the least that the “brilliant scientist trumps ignorant theologians” scenario is a myth. But has anyone made a case that the church would have changed its theology on this point without the pressure of information from science? It’s true, as RPittman points out, I haven’t proved that data from science was the instrumental factor, but I pointed out in my first or second post that it seems pretty unlikely on the face of it that the theologians found verses that lead them to question geocentrism. Does anyone want to make that claim? Yes, the truth is that believing scientists (or at least theistic ones) were involved, but it was still science.

It matters, because if it is legitimate to give data from observations (aka “modern science”) a role in how we interpret Scripture, it suggests that Waltke and Enns’ error is that of failing to recognize where some limits ought to be place on the role we give to science, not in granting science any role at all.

Aaron, Aaron, Aaron.
Yes, I have conceded to some extent. But, as I said, your example of “grabbing a dog by the ears” (Prov. 26:17) is worlds apart from redefining Genesis based upon a scientific theory. Let me try to define the difference first by refining the distinction of what is meant by the term “science”.

In the sense that you are using it, science is “knowledge attained through study or practice”. It would include the reaction of a dog if I grab its ears, or the fact that blood is pumped through our bodies by the heart. Allowing science to help us understand a passage like Prov. 26:17 based on that kind of knowledge can be legitimate – within limits I will later attempt to define.

The other way we use the term science is “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.” Something passes into the realm of such knowledge via experimentation within the scientific method. During the phases in which a thing is a “hypothesis” or “theory” and has not yet arrived at “law”, it is dangerous to give it the acclaim and respect given to “knowledge” on the scientific level. In some senses, this is a problem for science, since the set of things that are true is larger than the set of things that are provable.

In the case of evolution, there are hurdles in moving it from the “theory” column to the “fact” column. First, it assumes another entire theoretical model “uniformitarianism”, which itself is difficult to prove by experiment. Second, it is actually a meta-theory – a cloud made up of theories of origins in different disciplines (cosmology, biology, geology, etc.). Thus, it becomes hard to disprove. There can be no experimentation, due to time-frames involved. There can be no repeatability, because we don’t have any spare universes to observe (yet). There can be no modern observers, because our time machine isn’t quite working yet. There can certainly not be multiples observers to rule out bias. It has become a theory that “cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fit into it… No one can think of ways to test it” says Paul Ehrlich, himself an evolutionist.

There is a big difference between allowing our interpretations to be influenced by obvious facts based on observation and complex theories that have not yet been proven and that may in fact be unprovable.

A 2nd and related difference arises in that complex patterns can be imagined where they do not exist. Humans are great at this. It happens in all disciplines. I would argue that there is a fundamental difference of level between the science that says “grabbing a dog and yanking his ears is going to be trouble, because I have done it twice, and I got bit both times” and the level of science that talks about hundreds of digs, strata, findings in those strata, and the various interpretive layers build on those findings. Complex versus simple observations are fundamentally different. The more complex, the greater the amount of interpretive connections that had to be made between the different elements.

Even your example of Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism was a complex set of observations that took some time to sink in – but did not begin to approach in complexity the arguments for the meta-theory of evolution across all the disciplines.
It is inherently risky to allow such theoretical observations on such complex issues to guide the interpretive process.

In the case of the dog’s ears, there is minor risk. “Just because he yanked the dogs ears doesn’t mean that’s why the dog was angry. Perhaps he has an unpleasant odor. We need to repeat the experiment using other test subjects, both dogs and humans, in various test conditions.” OK. Sure. But we all understand by common experience that yanking a dog’s ears will be trouble.

In the case of allowing evolutionary theory to sway the meaning of Genesis 1-2, we have an entirely different situation. There is skepticism even among some scientific philosophers that we can ever prove it to the satisfaction of scientists so that it can be called law. Why would we allow it to guide interpretation?

The third difference is in the area of direction.
Imagine that we had a verse of Scripture that says “Blood is pumped through the body”. At some point, a scientific observer (Harvey I believe, Galen having missed it) posits that blood is pumped through the body by heart action. He experiments, and proves this, to the point that it becomes accepted law (as it has). Then, we, as conservative believers, would safely say “The Bible says blood is pumped through the body – doubtless referring to the fact that the heart is actively pumping blood as science has proved.” Most importantly, it would have guided us toward the natural reading of the passage as identified by the laws of hermeneutics.

Now, instead, take Exodus 7:3, where God states His intention to “harden Pharaoh’s heart”. Medical science has identified that a hardening of the heart wall can be a result of disease processes. But if we were then to allow this bit of medical knowledge to guide our interpretation of Exodus 7:3, we might wrongly conclude that God was smiting Pharaoh with a heart condition. In this case, we would have allowed our scientific knowledge to lead us in a direction that contravened the natural reading of the passage as identified by the laws of hermeneutics. We would be in error.

In the first case, I have allowed science to refine my understanding of a verse based on scientific law, in a direction consistent with hermeneutical law.

In the 2nd case, I have allowed scientific law to alter my understanding of a verse based on scientific law, in a direction inconsistent with hermeneutical law (specifically, I have used “heart” in a way not usually used in Scripture, and in a way inconsistent with the natural reading suggested by the surrounding verses).

I would argue that this is exactly what has happened with the Theologians referenced in the lead article. Despite Alex’s claims to the contrary, I think the most natural reading of Genesis 1 & 2 leads to a conclusion that Genesis’ author is intending to communicate the beginning of all things. Witness, for instance, the fact that the same author (Moses) uses the same terms “Heavens and Earth” in a more definitive sense in Exodus 20:11, indicating that all in the Heavens and the Earth were also made in the same 6 day time frame he referred to earlier. Even a liberal reader who rejects Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is forced to deal with the fact that an early author or redactor is identifying the meaning of Genesis 1 & 2 to the ancient Jewish mindset.

Allowing evolution to lead me away from the natural hermeneutic of the passage is a distortion of hermeneutics by definition. If I do so, I have imposed a modern understanding of how the universe came into being onto my text.

The fourth difference is in the theological implications.
The dog’s ears observation has no theological implication.
Despite Rome’s tortured arguments to the contrary, geocentrism vs. heliocentrism has not theological implications.
But accepting an evolutionary framework for interpreting Genesis leads to huge theological departures. The creation account, the singular nature of the first couple, the state of mankind prior to the fall, and the state of mankind after the fall, all have connections to theological passages that connect with our doctrines of man, sin, salvation, as well as practical implications for the home and family life – all based on direct references to the account in Genesis. If we accept an evolutionary framework, then Paul and Christ were using MYTHICAL events to shore up their theology. This says some things about inspiration and theology that force us to succumb to theological liberalism in other areas at some point.

Regardless, the theological implications are a guidebook for the way Jewish believers and early Christians viewed the Genesis account. Who are we to say “That’s not the way ancient readers viewed Genesis.”?

In answer to your challenge, Aaron, the theologians condemned in the lead article did cross a line.
They used scientific theory to redefine a passage in a way that the underlying hermeneutics did not support.

Much has been said in this thread about Galileo and the conversion to Heliocentrism from Geocentrism. I wish to make a few observations:

The role of Galileo in the discussion was that his telescope made refined observations that tended to shore up heliocentrism. He did not propose it (actually, that goes back to Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd Century BC, with later refinement by Copernicus). Many church leaders at the time of Galileo were supportive of heliocentric theory, and were in fact supporters of Galileo. Galileo was probably tried because of his rudeness on the topic more than his defense of it. He publicly declared the idiocy of those who opposed him, many of whom were church leaders. The trial was about rebellion, not science.

Having said that, the question that Aaron poses is basically this: Would anyone have proposed the idea of a heliocentric interpretation of certain Bible verses if scientific observation had not suggested it? The implications are obvious; if not, then we may have to accept that hermeneutics sometimes cannot be sufficient to lead us to the actual meaning of a verse.

But I would argue that the question is backwards.

The issue is not that the Bible is geocentric.
The issue is that human language is by nature geocentric. As far as I know, every human language refers to the sun rising, setting, and such other terms that assume a geocentric viewpoint. It’s arguable that the issue was not any particular geocentric theory developed by early man as the foundations of human language, so much as the point of view of the speaker. We do not perceive the earth to move.

As the debate about heliocentrism unfolded, faith and science came into contact for almost the first time. The Catholic church tried to argue that the Scriptures taught the geocentric viewpoint – largely based on the linguistic coincidence mentioned above. Protestants, not locked into centuries of church fathers and their discussion of the immovability of the earth, were more willing to accept heliocentrism. It is actually not addressed in Scripture at all.

The only possible debate with heliocentrism from Scripture would be based on two verses in Psalms that claim the world cannot be moved. But read Psalm 93 carefully, to name one of the two. Using rules of Hebrew poetry, what is the argument? Is the passage really referring to the immovability of the physical planet earth? Clearly not.

Sadly, there are those who believe that even Young Earth Creationists have compromised much away, because most of us accept heliocentrism in defiance of the clear teaching of the Bible (usually, the KJV, in this case). But this is the same linguistic confusion.

I could similarly argue that modern scientific teaching about the brain is wrong, because the Bible teaches that the heart is what feels, thinks, and imagines. But the Bible does not teach this; human language does. Human language limited the way in which “the seat of human thought and feeling” could be identified. We still use “heart” the same way today, except in a medical sense.

Similarly, human language tended to fit better with a geocentric interpretation only because of the point of view of all human speakers – if feels like we are fixed on an immovable earth and the sky moves around us.

The same is not true, by the way, with the Genesis account. Genesis 1 & 2 could easily have said that things evolved by changing forms (some ancient literature did), or that the earth was always here (as in Hinduism), or any other thing the author wished to communicate. But Genesis did not.

Mike D,

I do hope you understand that I, myself, am not arguing for any form of evolutionary narrative from Scripture or science though I hold to an old earth view (young humanity) and share some of the sentiments regarding the ears we must lend to the voice of science as stated by Waltke (without succumbing to its narrative of its findings).

Mike D,

Since my editing time has pass let me add I do believe one can hold to a literal 6 day creation and an old earth at the same time, per Young’s translation.

I can see I’m a long way from being able to make myself clear on this topic… maybe because I’m along way from having thought it through!
But this discussion might help me move in that direction. So I do appreciate the tension.

I would be extremely uncomfortable with talking in terms of using science to interpret or inform the Bible. Is that not the essence of modernism? How would we then interpret miracles and the resurrection?

It looks like you’ve taken the view that “science” is something different from looking at the world, making observations, and drawing conclusions. If you replace the term “science” with “observe and draw conclusions,” you might find that the discomfort decreases. Believing that you have to look at the world and interpret it in order to understand what the Bible says about the world is not the essence of modernism. It’s true that the premodern way is “believe first, then understand,” but that’s a nutshell expression. You can’t really believe something unless you understand it to some extent first. Otherwise, for example, could I read Genesis 1:1 in Ukrainian and say “I believe it”? (Assuming I didn’t know it was Genesis 1:1). The words have to have relationships to what I observe and interpret in the world around me or they are meaningless to me and I can’t believe them.
But “believe first, then understand” is right insofar as it has to do with establishing your basic beliefs that you then use to understand more and believe more and so on. So there is interplay all the time between “as it is written” and what we see and experience.

I think it might help to know that I make a distinction between “science as an activity” and “science as a body of ideas.” Mike pointed out that the term “science” is used different ways. That’s helpful, because I’m pretty skeptical of the whole “settled science” idea and uniformitarianism and all that. These are not “science.” They are, in many cases, doctrine that happens to have been preached by “scientists,” (though usually, the stuff is preached by people who got it from scientists… the scientists themselves tend to be much more tentative about their conclusions. The doctrinaire types tend to overlook all the “maybes” and “seems likes” and “possiblys” and “would be consistent withs” etc.).

So my interest in all of this is not to find ways to reinterpret Scripture to fit “scientific orthodoxy,” but rather a view of how “science as an activity” relates to how we understand Scripture. We can and do misinterpret the Bible, and sometimes even on a grand scale that spans centuries (hence the Reformation). So if we are capable of that, do we always have to discover theological error by theological means?

Let me throw in another example then try to wrap up… because I think this post may already be too long to get read!
Let’s take the Proverb that says “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.”
I grew up mostly hearing this text declared to be a promise that if you do your parenting right, your kids are guaranteed to turn out right. That interpretation was fine with me until I observed repeatedly in cases I knew well that it didn’t seem to work that way. This led me to question whether I had interpreted the passage correctly.
Now, admittedly, what should have led me to question my interpretation is better theology (starting perhaps with understanding what a Proverb is and then working through the truths of sin and depravity and the fact these problems are only solved by grace through faith and not through parenting, etc.). Good theology should have fixed my bad theology.
The way it actually happened, though was: observation —> reflection —> questions —> further study
In the Galileo case (often abused, but I’m not using it the same way), it seems that something similar occurred. The difference is that there doesn’t seem to be any good theology to fix the bad theology in that case. (As for there being “no theological significance” to whether the earth is the center of the solar system, the theologians of the day would certainly have disagreed!)

To borrow K Bauder’s map analogy, the map we use to navigate “transcendent reality” (real reality) must come from God (“theological imagination”). But we must correctly understand the map. If we are following it and bump into a rock, we either have misread it, or have perceived incorrectly that we bumped into a rock (or maybe were supposed to bump into a rock… can’t think of any other possibilities!). Science can only look at immanent reality. Theology defines science’s limitations, not vice versa. But what happens in “immanent reality” (ie experience) can be instrumental in alerting us to our errors in reading the map.

Maybe the key to avoiding the errors of Waltke and Enns without speaking of science as though it has no value beyond “proving” young earth creation—and without being improperly closed to it, is to recognize it’s place and keep that firmly in view. That place does not include establishing the limits of theology/Scripture, but it does include—in my view—tension in the area of interpretation.

So, again, to try to be clear, I am not saying that science may ever tell us the Bible is wrong where it has clearly spoken. It may not tell us Jesus did not walk on water. I would say it may not (maybe can not) usually even tell us we have interpreted something incorrectly. But what we observe and experience are inevitably part of the interpretive process and “science” in that sense shouldn’t be kicked out of the ball game.

[RPittman] If data contradict Scripture, then we, as Bible-believers, reject it as untrue until it can be reconciled with Scripture. We do not modify our Scriptural views to fit the perceived data, which is subject to error, mistaken, and misinterpretation itself.

The problem, of course, is that it might be at times that it is our theological interpretation which is in error and not the data of science. If we position ourselves where science must always acquiesce because we possess all of the greater certainties when in fact we too engage in the process of interpretation, then we trivialize the contribution that science has for our discovery, interpretive aid and propositional development.

[Alex Guggenheim] The problem, of course, is that it might be at times that it is our theological interpretation which is in error and not the data of science.

You really have to stretch and strain to make what the Bible says about origins this difficult, Alex (Ex. 20:11). My understanding of the outline of the creation time block is the same today as it was when I was 5 years old.

Of course, many liberal scholars have given away the game by admitting that if you take the Bible at face value, it gives you “6/24.” (Or, as the Seventh Day Adventist bumper sticker says, “24-6.” ;) A little humor there to lighten things up.)

Seriously, if you have long ages of time before six 24-hour creation days, I guess you are putting the fossil record before the creation week. So…I guess the millennial kingdom (based on the work of Christ — Rom. 8:21-25) will only restore us to vast ages of wanton disease, death and bloodshed (Matt. 19:28)?!

Old earth creationism is a non-starter, my friend. Stick with the text, brother! Sola Scriptura!! H:) H:) H:) H:) H:) H:) :star: :star: :star: :star: :exmark:

[Alex Guggenheim] Mike D,

Since my editing time has pass let me add I do believe one can hold to a literal 6 day creation and an old earth at the same time, per Young’s translation.

Alex,

Thanks for clarifying your view. I had incorrectly pigeon-holed you, and am now moving you to a different one. I would be interested in discussing this in detail with you sometime. I wonder about Exodus 20’s “the heavens and the earth and everything in them” statement and what you do with it.

Mike D

[RPittman]

[Alex Guggenheim] Mike D,

Since my editing time has pass let me add I do believe one can hold to a literal 6 day creation and an old earth at the same time, per Young’s translation.

Alex, why do you feel the need for an old earth view with six literal days? I really don’t understand. Please explain.

I don’t feel there is a need for anything other than recognizing valid textual approaches which I believe fairly includes an interpretation of Genesis and the Bible which takes the view that this is the beginning of the age of humanity and not necessarily the earth itself.

To RPittman… how do you know that “Waltke, Enns, and Longman have gone the wrong road—the same one that earlier scholars followed into Modernism-Liberalism.”

1. What exactly is that road and how does it differ from the idea that observations from science can legitimately expose our errors of interpretation? (You don’t seem to have interacted at all with what I posted on that point.)
   
2. How do you know what the thought process has been for Waltke, Enns etc. that led them to where they are? I don’t think it’s a given that Waltke and Enns are even thinking the same way. You can get to point B from point A by many routes.
   
   

[Mike Durning]

[Alex Guggenheim] Mike D,

Since my editing time has pass let me add I do believe one can hold to a literal 6 day creation and an old earth at the same time, per Young’s translation.

Alex,

Thanks for clarifying your view. I had incorrectly pigeon-holed you, and am now moving you to a different one. I would be interested in discussing this in detail with you sometime. I wonder about Exodus 20’s “the heavens and the earth and everything in them” statement and what you do with it.

Mike D

First, I would prefer to be place in no holes on this matter. I have not come to a conclusion myself.

Your Exodus reference should not be dismissed by anyone who entertains the belief that the earth’s age is far, far older than humanity’s. So you are right in not only citing this one but any other passages that appear to contend with such a view and they must be reconciled. But because I am not necessarily a proponent of such views rather I am a proponent of recognizing its textual validity, I cannot offer you an immediately robust response. But I will say that two points come to mind.

1. The God of ages view. That is, when Moses made this quote he certainly had in mind just what you have in mind, that in six days all God made, that is the heavens and earth, were done in six days. But this making or forming (as Young calls it “preparation”) was done so with respect to ages which is reflected in Scripture as a feature of God’s program for his creatures and here it is a reference, not to the beginning of all things or a universal creation, rather a reference to the inauguration of the age of humanity. Hence Moses would rightly identify that all things relevant to our human era as recorded in Genesis were made in six days.

The God of ages views stems from the varying ages either explicitly or implicitly referred to in Scripture both on macro and micro scales. There was, previous to man, an age of Angels. Angels not only had their own age but during that time were offered some opportunity for angelic salvation (as we know by the reference to elect Angels, meaning those that accepted God’s chosen method of salvation for them which is not described in the Bible but we know it is so, again by the reference to their being elect Angels). As well there is the age of humanity which is the present age and there is an age yet to come where there still will be another age for the earth under the program of “a new heaven and a new earth”. And particularly within the age of humanity we see micro-ages regarding God’s protocol and plan for humanity and believers.

2. The reconstruction theory. Often called the GAP theory it proposes that Genesis 1:1-2 should have in view an earth that “became” void and then was reconstituted or re-created. And because the emphasis of Genesis was not pre-humanity’s history, rather the declaration of God’s initiation of the age of humanity, the writer did not write with the kind of force to highlight this distinction, rather his emphasis was the quick move from the general beginning to the initiation of humanity. Therefore what Moses is referring to is the creation of the age of humanity and not the ancient universal inauguration and this creation of the age of humanity would rightly have in view the heavens and the earth.

These are only two of several responses that exist to your question. Again, I am not here as a proponent of any thing other than the validity of certain textual approaches. I do recognize problems in all of the various interpretations. However, I am not satisfied with my own discoveries and enlightenment at this point to speak with the kind of certainty that would place me in any specific school.

[Paul J. Scharf]

[Alex Guggenheim] The problem, of course, is that it might be at times that it is our theological interpretation which is in error and not the data of science.

You really have to stretch and strain to make what the Bible says about origins this difficult, Alex (Ex. 20:11). My understanding of the outline of the creation time block is the same today as it was when I was 5 years old.

Of course, many liberal scholars have given away the game by admitting that if you take the Bible at face value, it gives you “6/24.” (Or, as the Seventh Day Adventist bumper sticker says, “24-6.” ;) A little humor there to lighten things up.)

Seriously, if you have long ages of time before six 24-hour creation days, I guess you are putting the fossil record before the creation week. So…I guess the millennial kingdom (based on the work of Christ — Rom. 8:21-25) will only restore us to vast ages of wanton disease, death and bloodshed (Matt. 19:28)?!

Old earth creationism is a non-starter, my friend. Stick with the text, brother! Sola Scriptura!! H:) H:) H:) H:) H:) H:) :star: :star: :star: :star: :exmark:

This is one approach but I don’t see it bedded in an appreciation for development and further enlightenment as one matures in their faith, but to each his own.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Mike Durning]

[Alex Guggenheim] Mike D,

Since my editing time has pass let me add I do believe one can hold to a literal 6 day creation and an old earth at the same time, per Young’s translation.

Alex,

Thanks for clarifying your view. I had incorrectly pigeon-holed you, and am now moving you to a different one. I would be interested in discussing this in detail with you sometime. I wonder about Exodus 20’s “the heavens and the earth and everything in them” statement and what you do with it.

Mike D

First, I would prefer to be place in no holes on this matter. I have not come to a conclusion myself.

Your Exodus reference should not be dismissed by anyone who entertains the belief that the earth’s age is far, far older than humanity’s. So you are right in not only citing this one but any other passages that appear to contend with such a view and they must be reconciled. But because I am not necessarily a proponent of such views rather I am a proponent of recognizing its textual validity, I cannot offer you an immediately robust response. But I will say that two points come to mind.

1. The God of ages view. That is, when Moses made this quote he certainly had in mind just what you have in mind, that in six days all God made, that is the heavens and earth, were done in six days. But this making or forming (as Young calls it “preparation”) was done so with respect to ages which is reflected in Scripture as a feature of God’s program for his creatures and here it is a reference, not to the beginning of all things or a universal creation, rather a reference to the inauguration of the age of humanity. Hence Moses would rightly identify that all things relevant to our human era as recorded in Genesis were made in six days.

The God of ages views stems from the varying ages either explicitly or implicitly referred to in Scripture both on macro and micro scales. There was, previous to man, an age of Angels. Angels not only had their own age but during that time were offered some opportunity for angelic salvation (as we know by the reference to elect Angels, meaning those that accepted God’s chosen method of salvation for them which is not described in the Bible but we know it is so, again by the reference to their being elect Angels). As well there is the age of humanity which is the present age and there is an age yet to come where there still will be another age for the earth under the program of “a new heaven and a new earth”. And particularly within the age of humanity we see micro-ages regarding God’s protocol and plan for humanity and believers.

2. The reconstruction theory. Often called the GAP theory it proposes that Genesis 1:1-2 should have in view an earth that “became” void and then was reconstituted or re-created. And because the emphasis of Genesis was not pre-humanity’s history, rather the declaration of God’s initiation of the age of humanity, the writer did not write with the kind of force to highlight this distinction, rather his emphasis was the quick move from the general beginning to the initiation of humanity. Therefore what Moses is referring to is the creation of the age of humanity and not the ancient universal inauguration and this creation of the age of humanity would rightly have in view the heavens and the earth.

These are only two of several responses that exist to your question. Again, I am not here as a proponent of any thing other than the validity of certain textual approaches. I do recognize problems in all of the various interpretations. However, I am not satisfied with my own discoveries and enlightenment at this point to speak with the kind of certainty that would place me in any specific school.

Alex, the Pigeon-hole thing was a joke, just so you know. Should have emoticoned it.

The reconstruction theory has been around for a very long time, so I won’t respond to it. The pro and con debate process is mapped out like an intricate dance known to all.

But your first suggestion or possibility leaves me thinking. If I were to take this view seriously, I would want to find some verses that suggest it to counterbalance Exodus 20:11. Otherwise, I feel forced to take the plain sense of Exodus 20:11 as a commentary on Genesis 1 & 2 and feel no pressure INTERNAL to Biblical hermeneutics to consider it. And if you’ve read my earlier posts, you know how resistant I would be to accepting an external scientific theory as a basis for throwing out the plain sense of a passage.

Now, you could trot out some “ages” verses from Biblical poetry, but I’d rather see something outside of Biblical poetry as a proof, for reasons that should be obvious. Furthermore, the way “ages” is used in Scripture is a rich study in and of itself, and leaves the issue quite open. Of course, I may be walking down a path you have no intention of going down here.

Mike,

I agree with your demand regarding these views and others and there are efforts to meet such demands by those proposing them. I am familiar with some of their further development but since I am not necessarily convinced I would not make the greatest advocate for presenting their details.

Thanks for the clarity on the bird’s nest :)

[RPittman]

[Alex Guggenheim]

[RPittman]

[Alex Guggenheim] Mike D,

Since my editing time has pass let me add I do believe one can hold to a literal 6 day creation and an old earth at the same time, per Young’s translation.

Alex, why do you feel the need for an old earth view with six literal days? I really don’t understand. Please explain.

I don’t feel there is a need for anything other than recognizing valid textual approaches which I believe fairly includes an interpretation of Genesis and the Bible which takes the view that this is the beginning of the age of humanity and not necessarily the earth itself.

Alex, I still don’t see it. IMHO, any valid textual approach is contextual. Any approach that tries to reconcile old earth and young man appears to interpret the text from some extra-Biblical idea. Why is a young earth view not acceptable for you? The only reasons that I know for an old earth view are the evolutionary interpretations of natural phenomenon.

I have yet to say a young earth view is not acceptable to me though I admit clearly my position leans toward an old earth/young humanity. I simply cannot attend to every single doctrinal consideration to the same degree and on this point my exploration and discovery is not satisfactory enough for any conclusive position, but from what I have studied my lean in the direction of an old earth/young humanity is due to the strength of both biblical and empirical causes.

I am surprised to learn that you are only familiar with old earth positions based on scientific models and not biblical arguments which are somewhat numerous, and the arguments to which I am referring are not theistic evolutionary arguments (though they abound also) but old earth/young humanity creation arguments.