Right now, I lean towards OEC but to be fair, only because I am more familiar with it. Can you give me a couple of reasons why you personally believe in YEC? Please
A couple (=2), without defense, as requested:
1. yom cannot be legitimately translated as anything other than "day" and the reference is clearly an ordinary day (the ordinary use of the term). Unless, then, the word has no referent and is a mere literary device, then there is frankly no room in the Genesis chronology for millions, much less billions, of years.
2. There was no death before the Fall. Therefore, there is no place more millions, much less billions, of years.
I don't want to turn this thread into a old earth gang up on you Jac where it is like 5 to 1 against you. And I know you have probably explained it and laid out a far better case before but go ahead and explain in greater detail if you want to. I'll be nice if I disagree. Although I'll defend the interpretation I believe is more true I don't forget that there is a brother in Christ on the other side.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
Right now, I lean towards OEC but to be fair, only because I am more familiar with it. Can you give me a couple of reasons why you personally believe in YEC? Please
A couple (=2), without defense, as requested:
1. yom cannot be legitimately translated as anything other than "day" and the reference is clearly an ordinary day (the ordinary use of the term). Unless, then, the word has no referent and is a mere literary device, then there is frankly no room in the Genesis chronology for millions, much less billions, of years.
2. There was no death before the Fall. Therefore, there is no place more millions, much less billions, of years.
I don't want to turn this thread into a old earth gang up on you Jac where it is like 5 to 1 against you. And I know you have probably explained it and laid out a far better case before but go ahead and explain in greater detail if you want to. I'll be nice if I disagree. Although I'll defend the interpretation I believe is more true I don't forget that there is a brother in Christ on the other side.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I think most people just want to know about this stuff - how old the earth is, how everything came to be. If nothing else, it's the curiosity of intelligent (to one degree or another) creatures.
I meant more does it matter to salvation? Our creation stance. Surely, the important bit is that we believe we are created, rather than exactly when.
It matters only if John 3:16 really says:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him, and holds to a certain creation belief, shall not perish, but have eternal life.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Your creation stance only affects salvation by two degrees of separation as far as I can tell. It can directly affect your eschatology, and your eschatology directly affects your doctrine of salvation. The reason is that if you hold to a creation stance that requires death before the Fall, then you cannot say that the passages in Isaiah and others that speak of a world of peace in which there is no death, even animal death, and those passages that speak of the inanimate world longing to be set free from corruption and the curse--you cannot say that this age is a literal restoration to the conditions of the original creation. Put simply, if there were death before the Fall, then pre-Fallen earth wouldn't have looked anything like the literal description of the Messianic age.
So there are two ways to deal with that, the first way is to just deny that the Messianic age will really look like that after all. That is, we just allegorize those OT prophecies. Forget a historical-grammatical hermeneutic, say they really refer to the church age and that we're talking about some "spiritual" peace and be done with it. That eschatology is called amillennialism and it directly affects your view of salvation.
The problem amillennialism creates for salvation can be illustrated by looking at the Olivet Discourse. In Matt 24, Jesus says that whoever perseveres until the end will be saved. Premillennial dispensationalists (people who strictly apply a historical-grammatical hermeneutic to all of Scripture) place that statement in a context of the Tribulation that comes just before the millennial reign. Thus, Jesus is saying that the person who perseveres until the end of the Tribulation will be saved, and here, saved from judgment and death in/by the Tribulation judgments (and the sheep/goat judgment that immediately follows). Salvation from hell is not in view. But if you adopt an amillennialism, then you have to say (as Augustine did) that "the end" refers to the end of your life, since, after all, there is no Tribulation to get to the end of! But then we can't be talking about salvation from temporal judgment or death. So then salvation from Hell must be in view. And thus, Jesus has made the perseverance of the saints to be a necessary condition for obtaining eternal life. And this, in turn, means no assurance. It means that works are necessary to be saved, and so the Catholic/Calvinist/Arminian position. As you all well know, I take that whole thing to be a false gospel.
Now there is another way to deal with the problem of the Messianic age's relation to Eden. We could claim that it will look like it is literally described after all, but then we just deny that this age is a restoration to the Edenic state. On this view, the Messianic age, far from being a restoration, is simply unprecedented. The problem here this creates with a person's view of salvation is far less direct. Because I don't want to write a dissertation, let me just over-simplify it this way: if death did not enter the inanimate world when mankind fell, then this Messianic Age (as described in Scripture) is not necessarily or essentially related to our salvation. That is, salvation is not be restored to how God intended things to be, but rather it is delivering us from the judgment of death by doing something totally different: I am saved and glorified, yes, but along with it, God chooses to do the same for the world. Why? Whatever reason we propose--and I'm not saying we can't propose possible reasons here--that reason can't be essentially connected to human nature (since humans existed, on this view, without death before the Fall but in a world where death was common). But on THIS view, Jesus did not do His miraculous works in virtue of His humanity but rather in virtue of His deity. That may not bother most people, because I think most people look at His miracles as proof that He is God. But I think that misses the big theological point He was actually demonstrating. Let pass what I think the real message was and just say that on this view, sanctification becomes a very different thing conceptually. It becomes more about what we do with God's help than it does about living in our true humanity, what humanity is supposed to be. And that goes to what faith really is . . .
Ultimately, the second view I think creates real theological problems at a very deep level. And most people don't go that deep. Plenty of people affirm the gospel and don't get into the deeper issues, and that's fine. But my point is that, at a really deep level, I think our creation view has a major impact on how we view what it is that Jesus did and is doing in us and thus how we appropriate that work.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Thanks jac, you've given me something to think about. I have a lot of thoughts competing for attention now, I think I underestimated how intricate a creation stance can be.
Gonna read your postthrough a few times, make sure I understand it then grill you
Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof - Kahlil Gibran
Maybe Jac could post the specific Isaiah verses, and any others he's referring to, so you can study them.
Thanks Jac.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I'm thinking of passages like Isa 11 (esp Isa 11:6-9) and Isa 65:17-25.
Anyway, I actually think of the creation story as primarily an eschatological one. If we try to understand it apart from eschatology (or if we try to understand eschatology apart from it) we're going to get ourselves in trouble. And since the essence of eschatology is the realization of our salvation, then our eschatology says a lot about how we understand the nature of our salvation. And that will say a lot about how we believe it is obtained as well as what benefits we expect to say in this life.
Bottom line: for me, the Bible is not a book about salvation. It is a book about eschatology. To put it in still more academic books, the Bible should primarily be read and understood eschatologically, not soteriologically. And, btw, to go back to an old conversation with Kurieuo, that's why I would still like to see him develop his interpretation of Genesis 1 more fully. I think the way he wants to approach the text is more in line with this general emphasis.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Well from my perspective the only way death before the fall could be a theological problem is if you believe like this 2nd Peter 3:4 that all things have continued as they were from the beginning of the creation,which I do not agree with or accept. Instead I believe there was a gap of time between one world perishing completely and then this world being made. I think it is for ya'll to sort out the death before the fall problem.Because whether there was death or not in the former world and based on the evidence there was death,but it would have no bearing on this world. God simply wiped the slate clean and started again when he created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden of Eden.He had a plan in place if they did sin to redeem man back to his former state.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
Jac3510 wrote:I'm thinking of passages like Isa 11 (esp Isa 11:6-9) and Isa 65:17-25.
Anyway, I actually think of the creation story as primarily an eschatological one. If we try to understand it apart from eschatology (or if we try to understand eschatology apart from it) we're going to get ourselves in trouble. And since the essence of eschatology is the realization of our salvation, then our eschatology says a lot about how we understand the nature of our salvation. And that will say a lot about how we believe it is obtained as well as what benefits we expect to say in this life.
Bottom line: for me, the Bible is not a book about salvation. It is a book about eschatology. To put it in still more academic books, the Bible should primarily be read and understood eschatologically, not soteriologically. And, btw, to go back to an old conversation with Kurieuo, that's why I would still like to see him develop his interpretation of Genesis 1 more fully. I think the way he wants to approach the text is more in line with this general emphasis.
It's interesting that the second of those Isaiah passages doesn't say there will be no death, but rather that people will live a long time, and be thought still young if they die at 100. You can see where the JWs get their idea of paradise on earth. Any thoughts?
Nicki wrote:Bump! For Jac or anyone, what do you think those verses are talking about?
I think comparing Isaiah 65:17-25 with Revelation 21:1-7 can provide some insight into what Isaiah was saying.
Isaiah 65:17-25
New Heavens and a New Earth
17 “See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
20 “Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
21 They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the work of their hands.
23 They will not labor in vain,
nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;
for they will be a people blessed by the Lord,
they and their descendants with them.
24 Before they call I will answer;
while they are still speaking I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord.
Revelation 21:1-7
A New Heaven and a New Earth 21 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.
Revelation 21-22 describes the eternal state that has always been the final goal of God's creation. I believe Eden gave mankind and Creation a localized preview of what God's final plan for Creation and mankind looks like. Unfortunately man sinned, and God's redemption of his image bearers took precedence. That is why creation is groaning (Romans 8:19-25). Creation is waiting for God to complete the redemption of mankind so Creation can become complete and 'perfect' (not just 'good') when heaven and earth come together and God dwells forever with mankind in the new heaven/new earth.
