One Response to “Slippery Slope? Old Earth Creation Model”

  1. rentafriend2000 April 20, 2016 at 10:59 pm #

    Always guaranteed to bring a lively discussion! I’m first off very glad to see you say you are not offended by spirited debate. So many people are just touchy these days. I’ll bet you could write an insightful article on why that is some time. But I digress.

    Just a few replies:
    1. You state “The idea of ‘evening and morning’ to mark a 24-hour day depends on the earth rotating around the sun”
    Forgive me, but this is false in two ways. First, the modern understanding of a day is about (as we view it in a heliocentric model) the earth rotating about its axis so that the entire earth passes from day (light) to night (darkness) and back- thus every point on earth traverses the entire circumference of earth. Our orbit does not determine a day, but a year. Our rotation- not around the sun, but around our own axis- determines a day. And once again you offer no reason why the light of the sun is a requirement for a day. Why do you feel the light of Day One insufficient to mark off a day and night for a rotating globe? Why do you think sunlight alone determines a day? And if the light made on day one isn’t used to mark off days, what was it made for? It seems to have no other purpose.
    And of course, without clarification in your premises, the conclusion “Therefore, the phrase ‘evening and morning’ must refer to a concept other than the beginning and end of one 24-hour period.” does not follow.

    Also, most deep time models would have the sun being created BEFORE the earth, with the explanation of people like Dr Ross being that the sun was not MADE on day 4, but REVEALED (by the removal of some cloud cover which had been obscuring it). So, if Dr Ross’s model is to be accepted, the light on day one IS the sun. So again I see no reason for your conclusion.

    2. The slippery slope of allowing YOM to mean something other than a day is a little different than you portray here (at least for any YEC’s I know of- perhaps you’ve read some I have not.). The argument is about letting context define a word. As I said before, there are only so many ways a Hebrew author could indicate that this day was really a normal 24-hour day, and this author uses ALL of them. There are plenty of ways in which he could have indicated that this was a long period of time, including the use of words other than YOM, but he uses NONE of them. Thus, there is every literary reason to accept those days as days, and NO literary reason not to. When we look at the rest of Genesis, and the rest of the Hebrew OT to determine the best way to define this word in this context, we ALWAYS find that the word YOM used in the same manner refers to a normal day, and of the hundreds of times ordinal numbers, evening or morning are used independently with the word YOM, there are maybe three places where it might mean something else. Thus, more than 99% of the uses with evening, morning, number in the OT are normal days. The primary point is that, when we look at the usage in hundreds of passages throughout the OT, there is NO LITERARY REASON to consider the days of Genesis as anything but normal days, because the author is using the word just like all of the other OT authors use it- to mean a normal day.

    If there is a slippery slope, it is that allowing atheistic materialism in the pretense of science to change the clear meaning of scripture as illuminated by context strips from us a faith in the integrity of the scripture or in God’s willingness or ability to communicate the truth to us. The reason we choose to define day to mean “day” is not because of what will follow if we don’t, but because of the literary context, and because of a total absence of reason scriptural or scientific to accept deep time. But what does follow is why we consider this argument worth having. The slippery slope is not our argument, it is our motivation for having the argument.

    3. I would encourage you to consider what a “Brand new” mountain would look like. How would it differ from an old one? Naturally, I have heard the argument that the appearance of age implies age because, otherwise, it makes God a deceiver. I used to subscribe to this argument, because it seems common sensical (if sensical is a word). But the only reason to think that geology looks OLD is because you have already bought into a uniformatarian thinking: canyons are formed a few inches per century, stalactites form a centimeter per century, islands take many thousands of years to emerge and develop beaches and ecosystems, etc. The problem, scientifically speaking, is that these assumptions are all false. We know from observation that mountains, islands, stalactites, and canyons can form very quickly. Deep time assumptions in geology have been constantly shattered by modern observations. We’ve watched islands and canyons form, not in millennia, but in DAYS. We’ve seen stalactites form in weeks. I would encourage you to look into this. Naturally, AiG has plenty to say, but I recommend Ian Juby on Genesis Week (Available on YouTube). He makes it all very simple, though he doesn’t shy away from the complex stuff. The truth is, NOTHING in nature looks old. It is merely labeled or explained that way.

    4. How old a mountain looks is no where near as misleading as the words of God to Moses and Jesus to his disciples and other onlookers if deep time is real. God tells Moses very clearly in the ten commandments that he made the world and all life in six days, and then rested on the seventh, thus setting the work week and Sabbath by his example. It is literally a day for day comparison. If that isn’t true, how to do you deal with this proclamation? Ross tries to argue for a numerical parallel, but then why does God not do the same for numerical parallels of six years and one year? Once again the text has to be stretched to the point of breaking to keep God from being a liar if those days are not days. This would go beyond mere metaphor and must be considered far more deceitful than an old looking mountain range. And when Jesus says “In the beginning He made them male and female (referring to Adam and Eve) this would also be simply false. In a deep time model, God would have made them at the END, the exact opposite of what Jesus says.

    And of course, the flood of Noah has to be compressed into a local flood, but then what becomes of God’s promise to Noah never to bring a flood like it again, when flooding has happened around the world ever since? Surely God broke that promise a thousand times over if the flood he meant was a local one. Not to mention that the flood is described as covering the highest mountains and lasting a full year. How does a local flood cover the highest mountains for months and remain local? And how does a guy in a boat full of animals not at least drift to the nearest bank in a full year’s time? And why fill a boat with animals in the first place? Why not MOVE when you know a flood is coming? But again I digress. The point is, that the Old and New Testaments offer MANY problems if the text is not taken literally in Genesis, because they both refer back to the creation and the flood in many places. The slippery slope is truly that, if we refuse to believe what Genesis says, then there are a LOT of pieces of scripture that we have to reject along with them. We jettison the trustworthiness of the Bible, the honesty of God, and the knowledge of Jesus. And again, I must stress, there is no reason in the text or the language it is written in, and there is no reason in science which must force us to do so. All of it is based on assumptions which are demonstrably false.

    Keep studying, and using your keen grasp of philosophy. And let us know what you discover.
    Thanks, as always,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: