A "Live" Discussion on Old Earth Creationism (Part 5)

Young Earth Advocates Argue
Against An Ancient Universe

— Using Purely Human Antagonism!

A "live" discussion with young earth advocates regarding the fact that the
universe is ancient. See specifically how they offer nothing more than their
merely human speculation. (A few blatantly misrepresent everything in sight!)

Part 5

Take your pick (click):

LURlist Archive 297, Message 1 (8/5/99)
I point out that the Bible is not scientifically accurate because it was not intended to be a scientific treatise. A geocentrism tie-in.
LURlist Archive 298, Message 5 (8/6/99)
I have to quote myself in context to show that I already clarified my statement that "the Bible is not scientifically accurate" because all comments were ignoring what I had already said. I comment a bit more about "anthropocentric," or "phenomenological," language. I give some other miscellaneous clarifications.
LURlist Archive 300, Message 3 (8/11/99)
I take Dr. Marion Fox to task for trying to use the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture as a "smoke and mirrors" debate tactic, and use this to draw some important lessons about attitude and about Church of Christ "culture" in general.
LURlist Archive 302, Message 1 (8/12/99)
I discuss some of Kyle Richardson's comments in order to clarify my own specific position regarding the "day-age" interpretation of Genesis 1 (I don't advocate it, but some thought I did). I also take the opportunity to drive home various points I had already made in this discussion.
LURlist Archive 305, Message 4 (8/15/99)
Dr. Fox had not appreciated my taking him to task. But he responded with pure rhetoric, not addressing a single point I made, while throwing in more misrepresentation besides. What a shame that a man of his talent should go this route. I continue to find it amazing and amusing that such young earth advocates find it so difficult to acknowledge their own prejudicial misrepresentation. I point out several examples of where LUR respondents had jumped right in with highly prejudicial remarks right at the beginning of the discussion. I ask Dr. Fox to write something substantive if he really wants to discuss the points I made regarding his use of the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture.
LURlist Archive 305, Message 6 (8/15/99)
I launch into a lengthy discussion of Genesis 1 and biblical hermeneutics in light of the fact that the universe is ancient, and I point out some approaches consistent with biblical inerrancy.

[ TOC ]	[ PART 1 ]	[ PART 2 ]	[ PART 3 ]	[ PART 4 ]	[ PART 5 ]
[ PART 6 ]	[ PART 7 ]	[ PART 8 ]	[ PART 9 ]	[ PART 10 ]	[ HOME ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Biblical Considerations
Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:40:15 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=297
1

Hi, Ron.

Actually, there are cases where the Bible writers are not scientifically accurate, because they are not writing a scienctific treatise and are using, for lack of a better term, "anthropocentric" language - because they were communicating to people from a perspective different from our modern scientific/historical perspective. This was the whole problem with the geocentric/heliocentric controversy, that some refused to recognize that the Bible was NOT scientifically accurate because, indeed, it was not trying to be scientific or make scientific claims.

I would add the additional comment that this is NOT to claim that the Bible is scientifically wrong. The claim is simply that when you try to interpret statements as scientific ones when they are not intended to be so interpreted, then the interpretation itself is what is scientifically wrong. (Incidentally, this has been my claim all along with regard to old earth creationism.)

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

###### Ron L. Cosby, 8/4/99 ######
Bob,

You and I are in full agreement that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. However, while addressing the religious needs of mankind, Bible writers were always scientifically accurate in all of their statements. So, when Jesus states (1) that man was made by God or (2) that man was "from the beginning," we should conclude that Genesis chapter one and two are not long eons of time.

[snip]

Ron Cosby

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Biblical Considerations
Fri, 6 Aug 1999 23:36:43 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=298
5

Hi, all.

This post represents simply clarification, and nothing new from me (except for Hosea 6.2).

I tried to write very clearly, so as to not be misunderstood nor misrepresented:

And, prior to these two sentences, I had referred to the geocentricism/heliocentrism controversy (that I have discussed in previous posts several weeks ago).

Obviously, when a biblical writer uses a phrase about the "rising sun" he is not using scientific language, but is using anthropocentric language. His purpose is not to discuss the science of astronomy, but he just happens to use common language (which happens to be anthropocentric) when he is talking about something else. Clearly, the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa. The words, if they were to be interpreted literally (as the geocentrists did), would imply a scientifically wrong idea. Thus, as I said, "there are cases where the Bible writers are not scientifically accurate," but it is not really that what they say is wrong, it is that if you were to impose a scientific interpretation on them (and further advocate it as a "necessary inference") that the writers did not intend (such as geocentrism) then it is your interpretation that is scientifically wrong - not the Bible.

(By the way, note that Hosea 6.2 uses "yom" with a number, and it is used in a figurative manner.)

Please note that I myself don't happen to believe or advocate the "day-age" interpretation of Genesis 1. I lean toward a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1 (whereas the "day-age" position tends to advocate a chronological interpretation, but with a chronological "period" greatly expanded over the "young earth" one), but I do NOT advocate any particular approach as an exclusivist one that I think is conclusive and that all must follow in order to be pleasing to God.

My claim, from the beginning (as I noted in my 6/22/99 "An Approach Outline" post to Tim Nichols), has been "that in the particular case of the human interpretation of the biblical data that adopts the young earth position, the 'biblical data' is not only not conclusive, but that different interpretations are certainly plausible and reasonable" and that "it is wrong for young earth creationists to adopt an 'exclusivist, antagonistic' attitude toward any and all who disagree with the young earth creed."

From various comments that were made in the context of my discussion of the example of SN1987a (and the fact of the ancient universe that it exemplifies), I think most here in this forum are willing to grant that the empirical information from astronomical science shows an old universe, but they posit that the empirical information is an "artifact" of God having created a "grown up" universe. They posit this based on the claim that the young earth interpretation of Genesis 1 is unequivocal, and that because of this the "apparent age" concept is the only plausible one left for explaining the empirical information from astronomy.

But here I come along pointing out that the astronomical information is, here in 1999 (not 1899 or 1799), quite profuse and unequivocal. Hence, the dilemma. Either you have "apparent age" all the way down to the very last detail (such as that even the light itself from distant astronomical entities is affected by having traveled such great distances; i.e., if the light had traveled less than 6,000 light-years it would not be affected in the way that it is) - which leaves absolutely no possible way whatsoever *in principle* to "check it out," or, perhaps, the young earth interpretation of Genesis is not so unequivocal.

Enough for now. Have a good weekend!

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Old Earth Creationism - Moon & Spencer (Part 3)
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 00:21:25 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=300
3

MOON & SPENCER (PART 3)

From my previous post on this aspect (Part 2)...

Proposition 2: Dr. Fox, not just any young earth advocate but also educated in physics, should know better than to attempt to cite Moon & Spencer as justification of the young universe/young earth position, because their 1953 speculation turned out to be just an interesting conjectural model that had no evidence (no empirical information) to support it in 1953, and the relevant empirical information that exists only contradicts the conjecture. This second proposition of mine speaks to the attitude (and well-deserved reputation) of many young earth advocates to "play fast and loose" with the facts, all because of their persistent and pervasive prejudice against the old universe/old earth position.

Using Discredited Ideas Is Not Okay

Why is the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture still making the rounds among young earth advocates in the Church of Christ? And why aren't more Church of Christ members criticizing them for not being more careful about using error in support of their views? People who claim to venerate truth and truth-seeking should know better than to tolerate the active irresponsibility that this represents.

"As those whose lives and teachings revolve around the importance of truth, we, of all people, should do all we can to avoid the dissemination of erroneous material, regardless of how 'good' it may sound, or the 'evidential value' it may appear to have. Yes, we should defend God's Word. But no, we should not use error to do it. 'Faithfully teaching the Faith' is not merely an awesome privilege, but an awesome responsibility as well."

-- Dr. Bert Thompson (Reason & Revelation, 2/99)

What is sad is the subculture that exists in the Church of Christ that not only tolerates this kind of attitude, but implicitly encourages and promotes it. If you can't stick by intellectual integrity, what does this demonstrate with regard to your overall perspective?

Here we are in 1999 with some young earth advocates continuing to promote Moon & Spencer's discredited idea, almost fifty years later, in the face of all of the extensive empirical astronomical information that shows nothing of the kind and makes Moon & Spencer's conjecture just an obsolete idea. Additionally, we have an active contingent in the Church of Christ encouraging such young earth advocates in their uncritical espousal of such discredited ideas: Moon & Spencer's "shortcut for light." Barry Setterfield's decay in the speed of light. The shrinking sun. 50-foot deep moon dust. Ocean salinity. And so on.

Why? Why is this practice tolerated and encouraged?

When Dr. Fox presented his Moon & Spencer citation, at least some in this forum (at least one?) should have had the integrity to "step forward" and specifically acknowledge that Moon & Spencer's idea was not a legitimate argument in favor of a young universe.

But no one did.

You waited for me, the old universe/old earth advocate to do it. In mid- June, I pointed out IN MY VERY FIRST POST ON THIS TOPIC that this discussion was JUST AS MUCH ABOUT ATTITUDE as it was about anything else (using the quote, repeated above, from Dr. Bert Thompson as an example of my point), and I have kept this point at the forefront since then.

How many of you have yet taken any time whatsoever to independently investigate Dr. Fox's claim with regard to Moon & Spencer's conjecture? Or did you simply take his word for it, because you already agree with him in the general belief in the young earth position? (And, of course, you believe my comments lack credibility because I'm advocating an old universe/old earth, so you don't even need to check out what I claim.) If you followed the course of acquiescence, then you demonstrated the very prejudicial attitude that I have been pointing out all along.

Intellectual honesty demands more than acquiescence to using error in support of the beliefs that you happen to cherish. And the fact is that there is this significant subculture that has developed in the Church of Christ that promotes this attitude that it is somehow okay to espouse error as long as "your heart is in the right place" with regard to what are considered the critical religious creeds (which the young earth creed is among). Yes, I know that the explicit rhetoric exists stating that this attitude is not right, but frequently the implicit deeds don't match the explicit words in particular situations, such as in the case of the many young earth advocates who frequently espouse discredited ideas in support of the young earth creed.

The Particular Case Of Moon & Spencer's Conjecture

Dr. Fox intimated that he knew better about the Moon & Spencer conjecture. He knew that he was citing something from almost fifty years ago. He knew that he was citing, not a scientific report of empirical astronomical information that corroborated his young universe position, but pure speculation. Dr. Fox knew that this conjecture has, since 1953, received absolutely no corroborating empirical evidence. He knew that all of the relevant empirical astronomical information that exists today supports, not Moon & Spencer's conjecture, but the fact of an almost incomprehensibly immense universe which is correspondingly quite ancient. Dr. Fox knew that all of the empirical astronomical information that exists today shows a universe in which the near galaxies (i.e., galaxies less than, say, about 100 million light-years from earth) are *relatively* unaffected by the effects of curved space. He knew that there is not a single astronomer alive who would agree with Moon & Spencer's conjecture.

But instead of acknowledging any of this, Dr. Fox continued to dispute my perfectly legitimate example (SN1987a) and raised Moon & Spencer's conjecture as a "smoke and mirrors" debate tactic. He is so prejudiced against the old universe/old earth position that he refuses to acknowledge even the obvious, citing a discredited criticism that even Dr. Bert Thompson has recognized as a fallacy.

At the very least, Dr. Fox should have taken care to try to represent me correctly instead of misrepresenting my argument as he did, and he should not have tried to represent Moon & Spencer's conjecture as being some kind of empirical information that showed that the empirical information (as represented by such examples as SN1987a) of the ancient universe is being, somehow, misinterpreted.

Why did Dr. Fox represent things the way he did in his discussion? Clearly, Dr. Fox is well educated and quite intelligent. Why does he feel that a "smoke and mirrors" tactic like this is necessary, instead of simply acknowledging the truth of the matter and dealing with that?

The Lesson To Understand

Are we simply engaging in a debate, for which we should use rhetorical maneuvers in order to win, or should we more properly be attempting to parse out the truth of the matter?

Clearly, the discussion of various aspects of the young earth position versus the old earth position cannot be legitimately approached with the kind of attitude by which many young earth advocates try to simply dismiss the old earth position out of hand by employing prejudicial terminology, discredited ideas, and rhetorical debate tactics. To be genuinely involved in the pursuit of truth demands a higher standard than this.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
(1 Corinthians 14:33)

P.S.: This completes my "Moon & Spencer" series. I believe epistemological considerations are next up, according to Dr. Fox's presentation. (Though notice that I HAVE been discussing biblical considerations, as indeed I have been discussing them all along as they were brought up by others.)

[Note (1/19/00): However, later on I wrote an extensive "Moon & Spencer (Part 4)" based on subsequent comments by Dr. Marion Fox.]

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Biblical Considerations
Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:21:47 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=302
1

Hi, Kyle.

Here are some items for your consideration:

(1) "The evening and the morning" construction in Hebrew as used Genesis 1 is used uniquely in the Bible in Genesis 1. It is a special literary construction of some kind.

(2) 1 Corinthians 15.4 was not written in Hebrew, and has nothing to do with Genesis 1.8.

(3) You make the comment, "The whole Bible would mean different if we take and apply what you want us to believe (eras of time)." However, quite to the contrary, I specifically stated in an 8/6/99 post:

(4) Finally, you yourself emulate the exclusivist approach when you make such statements as "If we say that God's word is wrong (or means different than what it says [emphasis added]) then we don't have sound faith."

Yet I pointed out specifically that in the case of geocentrism, if we interpret the Bible LITERALLY from a scientific perspective, then FROM THE BIBLE ALONE we would have to argue that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun, the other planets, and the stars revolve about the earth. In the case of geocentrism, "phenomenological" language is clearly what is being used in the Bible. But this was not so clear until - guess what - developments in science came along, such as the telescope and accumulated empirical information derived from the "further reach" that the telescope provided (which also fed into further developments in math, and so on, in a positive feedback process). (I used the term "anthropocentric," rather than "phenomenological," in my 8/6/99 post.) You must take this point into account.

Indeed, the geocentrists made the very same claim that you are making: Those who rejected geocentrism did not have sound faith.

Well, either the geocentrists are wrong, or you yourself, Kyle, do not have sound faith, because you interpret the Bible on this point in a manner different from the simplest, most literal one.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

###### Kyle Richardson, 8/11/99 ######
Todd S. Greene writes:

This same word "yowm" (also referred to as "yom") is also used in Genesis 2:4, and clearly does not mean a 12-24 hour period.

I have to agree with you there. I looked this verse up in Strongs dictionary, and I found that the word "yom" can mean 'a period of time'. BUT I very strongly believe that ANYONE can take a word out of context. Take a look at Genisis 2:4

"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens," (NKJV)

When we look at a verse, I believe that we cannot just take a word out of a sentence and make it say somehting it doesn't. The verse above clearly means a time period. (We also know that this very time period is found in Genesis 1:1 - 2: 3 Which GOD said was seven days) So by not only finding the meaning of this word by taking this word in context by verse, we also took it by chapter, thus we found the meaning of the word.

Now lets look at Genesis 1:8:

"And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day." (NKJV)

Now this is talking about a 12-24 hour period of time (considering that we call one cycle of morning and evening a day) We took this from the standpoint of a verse now lets take it farther. In 1 Corinthians 15:4 we read:

"and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures," (NKJV)

This verse uses the word 'day' the EXACT way we see it in Genesis 1:8. If we say that this verse means an era of time, our whole Christian faith is gone. For if we don't have a sound place to obtain faith our faith is wrong. In Romans 10:17 it says "For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." If we say that God's word is wrong (Or means different than what it says) than we don't have sound faith.

There are literaly HUNDREDS of verses in the Bible that use the word "yom" the same way it is used in Genesis 1. The whole Bible would mean different if we take and apply what you want us to believe (erras of time). This is just not possible.

How about another example. Take and read the account of the battle of Jericho, in Joshua 6. All of us, I'm sure, remember this account. In this the children of Isreal marched around the camp for six DAYS (yom).

"'You shall march around the city, all you men of war' you shall go all around the city once. This you shall do six days." (Joshua 6:3; NKJV)

This verse also uses the word 'yom' the same way it is refered to in Genesis 1. If this is to mean eras of time, then these people should still be marching around Jericho today! They should still be marching around Jericho for more than a billion years into the future! How can you still believe that this is what the word means with all of this evidence PROVEN BY THE BIBLE ALONE?

I pray that you will listen to what the BIBLE says and think about it.

in HIM
kyle richardson

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Old Earth Creationism - Moon & Spencer (Part 3)
Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:05:59 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=305
4

Hi, Dr. Fox.

Thank you for continuing to misrepresent my overall discussion. You state that "Todd again reverts to empirical information, not the Scriptures," directly ignoring a great part of posts I have made over the last several days. (And please pay attention to my post following this one, on "Further Biblical Considerations.")

At first, I thought I was going to respond in detail to your post. But then I realized that there was nothing to respond to. What I have said is accurately representative. You have stated nothing substantive with regard to the specific points I made regarding your "Moon & Spencer" claim, nor have you shown any flaws in the general point I made about attitude (as demonstrated by the continued use of the Moon & Spencer claim). The fact that you refuse to acknowledge ONE SINGLE THING is how you speak to your own motives. I was simply speaking to what you were aware of, since you have an advanced physics education and are still active in physics (to which I note you did not deny anything I said).

If others truly are not able to determine the cogency of your Moon & Spencer criticism, then they should not be using the argument. But many do. The fact that you cannot even acknowledge that this situtation exists (where people who do not understand the arguments making the rounds in young earth circles use them anyway, of which I pointed out several), but instead try to chastize me for bringing attention to a factual situation of something that goes on on a routine basis in the church, is also you speaking to your motives.

And, by the way, where in the world do your syllogisms come from? They are nice, but misrepresentative. Since they are misrepresentative, they are irrelevant. I have always tried to be careful to say "many young earth advocates." I am NOT referring to ALL young earth advocates, and, of course, I am NOT referring to all members of the Church of Christ. If the shoes (that I have been talking about) fit you, why do you think it's somehow okay to "yell at me" for simply bearing the message? If the shoes don't fit, then show it. Otherwise, to try to chastize me for simply pointing out the truth is plainly just ironic, and again shows you speaking to your own motives.

To end this post, I would like to point out that in the first few posts in response to my original post on this topic back on 6/18/99, the motives of old earth proponents were impugned by young earth advocates in the following ways:

1.	the only people who would believe this are led by atheism (Andy Boshers),

2.	simply attempting to hide their true beliefs (Gil Yoder),

3.	dishonest (Gil Yoder),

4.	help others "wang out" to where they try to fit the Bible to men's theories (Terry Hightower),

5.	just following the "trends of the world" (Terry Hightower),

6.	just following their own "vain deceipt" (Terry Hightower).

And this was just within the FIRST 24 HOURS of my post! (I have already shown in previous posts various comments that have been made that implicitly or explicitly impugn my motives, and I have no wish to hash that out again here.)

Please address the specific points I made in my "Moon & Spencer (Part 2)" post where I showed just how completely wrong it is. These continuing "smoke and mirrors" tactics just aren't relevant to the discussion, and aren't becoming of you or the position that you advocate.

Misrepresentation, by intention or by prejudice, is what is sinful. Refusal to acknowledge the truth of a matter is sinful. Using "arguments" to chastize others, even to the point of claiming that they cannot be pleasing to God, while not understanding whether or not those arguments are even correct, is sinful.

When tallying up sins in this discussion, please be sure to include these.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

###### Marion R. Fox, 8/14/99 ######
Todd posted the following:

From my previous post on this aspect...

Marion here,

Todd again reverts to empirical information, not the Scriptures.

Todd continued:

This second proposition of mine speaks to the attitude (and well-deserved reputation) of many young earth advocates to "play fast and loose" with the facts, all because of their persistent and pervasive prejudice against the old universe/old earth position.

Marion here,

Todd is bringing attitudes into the discussion. He has no way of knowing what our motives are in this matter. Logically it is possible that we have good motives and are "just ignorant of the truth" but Todd does not allow for that possibility! Shame on you Todd! You are guilty of the sin of "evil surmising" (I Timothy 6:4) and need to repent before you lose your soul!

Todd continues:

Using Discredited Ideas Is Not Okay

Marion here,

Todd is correct in this point.

Todd continues:

Marion here,

Todd, give me a break, and please dispense with this sinful attitude! Let us assume that you are correct (that these arguments are unsound). Is it not possible that the persons on LUR are ignorant of the unsound nature of the arguments and are unable to know (understand the scientific arguments) whether or not they are unsound? Could not you be charitable and give them the benefit of the doubt. You spend so much of your time chastising others for speaking to you is the wrong manner and then are guilty of impugning our motives. Shame on you!

Todd continued by quoting Bert Thompson:

-- Dr. Bert Thompson (Reason & Revelation, 2/99)

Marion here,

I did not check the accuracy of this quote but I do agree with what is said in the above quote.

Todd continued:

Marion here,

Todd, asserted that we implicitly encourage a sinful attitude. Where is his three line syllogism proving this assertion? We have his conclusion and all we need to prove his charge of sin on our part is the middle term of his categorical syllogism. Brethren one form of a valid categorical syllogism is:

Major Premise:	All A are B.

Minor Premise:	C is A.

Conclusion:	C is B.

The middle term is depicted by the letter "A." The major term is depicted by the letter "B." The minor term is depicted by the letter "C." Todd gave us his conclusion: Those of the young Earth persuasion are those who implicitly encourage a sinful attitude. The major term (B) is "those who implicitly encourage a sinful attitude." The minor term (C) is "Those of the young Earth persuasion." Todd's argument becomes:

Major Premise:	All A are those who implicitly encourage a sinful attitude.

Minor Premise:	Those of the young Earth persuasion are A.

Conclusion:	Those of the young Earth persuasion are those who implicitly encourage a sinful attitude.

Brethren, we await his middle term (represented by the letter "A") proving that he is not guilty of the sin of slander!

Todd continued:

Marion here,

Moon and Spencer made calculations based upon certain assumptions. I doubt that Todd can give us proof that the Universe is shaped in some particular manner. Is the Universe spherical, hyperbolic, parabolic, flat, an ellipsoid, or some other shape? Todd cannot know how light travels unless he knows the shape of the Universe.

Todd continued:

But no one did.

Marion here,

Todd, did you not think it might be possible that some on LUR did not have the expertise to determine the truthfulness of any of these arguments? At least you could give the readers of LUR the benefit of the doubt and not violate the golden rule.

Todd continued:

You waited for me, the old universe/old earth advocate to do it. In mid-June, I pointed out IN MY VERY FIRST POST ON THIS TOPIC that this discussion was JUST AS MUCH ABOUT ATTITUDE as it was about anything else (using the quote, repeated above, from Dr. Bert Thompson as an example of my point), and I have kept this point at the forefront since then.

Marion here,

Yes, Todd it is about attitude. Your attitude! You should deal with the arguments and quit being guilty of "evil surmisings" (I Timothy 6:4). Todd, this is sin on your part!

Todd continued:

Marion here,

Todd might have proven his case if this was the only option in the
matter. But we have pointed out that it is possible that people were
unable to determine the validity of any of these arguments. Todd, you
should give us the benefit of the doubt! Charity demands it!

Todd continued:

Marion here,

Todd is again guilty of impugning our motives. Shame on you Todd!

Todd continued:

Yes, I know that the explicit rhetoric exists stating that this attitude is not right, but frequently the implicit deeds don't match the explicit words in particular situations, such as in the case of the many young earth advocates who frequently espouse discredited ideas in support of the young earth creed.

Marion here,

Todd is again asserting without proof.

Todd continued:

The Particular Case Of Moon & Spencer's Conjecture

Dr. Fox intimated that he knew better about the Moon & Spencer conjecture. He knew that he was citing something from almost fifty years ago.

Marion here,

What does age have to do with the truthfulness of an argument? Todd should not be allowed to use any claim that is over 46 years old in any future post on LUR because he is implying that anything over 46 years old is false! How irrational can you get?

Todd continued:

He knew that he was citing, not a scientific report of empirical astronomical information that corroborated his young universe position, but pure speculation. Dr. Fox knew that this conjecture has, since 1953, received absolutely no corroborating empirical evidence.

Marion here,

Todd, it does not have to have empirical evidence to be true. The virgin birth does not have empirical evidence, but it is true. I could cite many other things that are accepted as truth but have no empirical evidence. Todd, are you an advocate of scientism (the only we we know things is by science - empirical evidence)?

Todd continued:

He knew that all of the relevant empirical astronomical information that exists today supports, not Moon & Spencer's conjecture, but the fact of an almost incomprehensibly immense universe which is correspondingly quite ancient. Dr. Fox knew that all of the empirical astronomical information that exists today shows a universe in which the near galaxies (i.e., galaxies less than, say, about 100 million light-years from earth) are *relatively* unaffected by the effects of curved space.

Marion here,

How does Todd know this when scientists do not agree on the shape of space?

Todd continued:

He knew that there is not a single astronomer alive who would agree with Moon & Spencer's conjecture.

Marion here,

So what if no astronomers agree with Moon and Spencer? He makes a broad sweeping claim to know what every astronomer believes (a point he cannot know). He is so worked up that he is becoming irrational!

Todd continues:

Marion here,

When did I try "to represent Moon & Spencer's conjecture as being some kind of empirical information that showed that the empirical information (as represented by such examples as SN1987a) of the ancient universe is being, somehow, misinterpreted."?

This is another wild assertion made by a man who is not thinking clearly.

Yours in His service,
Marion R. Fox

###### Marion R. Fox, 8/15/99 ######
On August 11, 1999 Todd S. Greene posted a lengthy post in which he spent a great amount of time impugning our motives.

I have made a simple request of Todd that he answer the following questions:

1.	Is Bible Truth absolute Truth (Truth with a capital "T") or it is tentative truth (truth with a lower case "t")?

2.	Is scientific truth absolute Truth (Truth with a capital "T") or is it tentative truth (truth with a lower case "t")?

3.	Does the Bible address the question of the age of the Universe?

Brethren, if the Bible is absolute truth and it addresses the age of the Universe, then we should determine what it says before we even think about science. I walk by faith not by sight, what about you Todd?

I have demonstrated that Todd is an agnostic if he has Bible truth to be tentative truth. I do not know of any reputable scientist who claims that scientific truth is absolute truth. If the Bible is tentative truth, we cannot know truth and must be either agnostics or cynics.

Brethren, I do not plan to respond to Todd unless he repents of his impugning my motives and answers the above questions. If you follow Todd into his system, you are rejecting a rational interpretation of the Scriptures and are being led into either agnosticism or cynicism.

I would be delighted to discuss scientific arguments on the age of the Earth/Universe/solar system once we have determined what the Scriptures teach on this matter.

Yours in His service,
Marion R. Fox

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
OEC - Further Biblical Considerations
Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:18:24 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=305
6

Greetings, all.

A prefatory comment: I wish to comment specifically on the use of "God is not the author of confusion" as being some kind of "proof text" against old earth advocates. The verse is being misused to try to claim that the Bible must be interpreted in a "one way" literalistic fashion and/or that all ideas genuinely meant by every biblical text are simple to understand. If this was the genuine meaning of the verse, then such books as Ezekiel and Revelation would not be part of the Bible. Indeed, we would not even have a Bible, because God would be speaking to each and every one of us personally. Specifically, the verse has to do with "an orderly sequence of events" in worship, as opposed to a cacophany. In an indirect sense I think it is applicable to the idea that "truth cannot contradict truth" in the sense that reality (truth, wherever it is) is consistent. Where contradiction exists, it is due to flaws in some aspects of our understanding of reality (the truth of the matter).

Here are some of the considerations I have been pointing out in this discussion, in outline form:

1.	Truth cannot contradict truth.

2.	The Bible is not a book of religious creeds presented in a formally logical manner.

3.	What we learn about the nature of reality (science) does indeed provide a "feedback" into the hermeneutical process. The historical geocentrism controversy provides an important case in point.

4.	We may not even know how to come up with an "interpretive answer" for a particular biblical text (derive every detailed aspect of its genuinely intended meaning), in light of considerations external to the specific text. But saying "I don't know" is not a sin.

5.	There are various allegorical interpretations and other kinds of interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis, of which some have been around for more than a thousand years. I do not propose any particular interpretation as being some kind of clearly delineated religious creed based on unequivocal religious doctrine built up from indisputable "necessary inferences," a creed that thus all Christians must believe in order to pleasing to God. (It is many young earth advocates who possess this "exclusivist" attitude, proclaiming that Christians who do not accept the young earth position cannot be pleasing to God.) My claim is that, however you choose to interpret Genesis, your interpretation MUST, simply in terms of respect for truth, recognize and accommodate the extensive and unequivocal empirical information by which we see that the universe is quite ancient. Statements such as "there is no empirical evidence to support such a conclusion" (a sentiment that has been specifically expressed in this forum in this discussion) are blatant misrepresentations of the truth of the matter, and thus are unacceptable (in terms of truth-seeking).

6.	The only young earth idea that possesses such a recognition is the "apparent age" concept. However, this concept is quite troubling to many because it renders ALL of the quite extensive direct empirical information of an ancient universe as simply an "vast illusion" of physical entities and events that never really existed. While young earth advocates may certainly choose to believe such a concept, the fact that other Christians choose to not accept this concept (because it puts God in the position of purposely and extensively deceiving people) and instead pursue the route of trying to understand Genesis in light of an ancient universe does not by any means turn them into "compromising Christians" whose views must be constantly castigated and whose faith must be questioned. (The frequent "I will keep you in my prayers" is a demonstrative example of this attitude.)

Because of these considerations (as well as others), I claim (and have been claiming) simply that it is reasonable by a standard of genuine truth-seeking for Christians to accept the old universe/old earth idea, and it is unreasonable to proclaim that Christians who do so are, for this reason alone, displeasing to God. I will not pretend to "have all the answers." I have SOME answers. There are some things I am aware of that I see many young earth advocates routinely ignore or misrepresent. The fact of this habitual misrepresentation of the truth of the matter leads me to question the credibility of the idea that they advocate.

In *I Believe Because...* (1971), Batsell Barrett Baxter writes (p. 97):

As one might well have expected of so significant a chapter, there have been many ways of understanding and interpreting its message down through the centuries.

In view of the many different interpretations by sincere Bible students, it would seem to be wise not to be dogmatic in insisting upon one's own views. There is an obvious danger in claiming that one's own interpretation is true, for it may not be true. It is unlikely that any person comprehends fully the message which God has so briefly sketched in this opening chapter of the Bible. The passing of time has demonstrated that some past interpretations have been very wrong and even ridiculous. This is not to say that the central message of the chapter cannot be comprehended, but it is to suggest that perhaps one ought to approach this brief description of the beginning of all things with some sense of his own limitations.

In his commentary on *Genesis* (1979), John T. Willis writes (p. 93):

All theories that have been proposed to harmonize Genesis 1 and science...have their strengths and their weaknesses. Perhaps there is some truth in each one. But it should be emphasized that 'the first chapter of Genesis is clearly not intended to comprise a scientific document' (R. K. Harrison, *Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 554; see also p. 553), but a religious affirmation. The truth it proclaims is that God created all that is, that he has adequately provided for the needs of all his creatures, that he has given man dominion over all other creatures on earth, and that the sum total of all he has made is very good.

The central message of Genesis 1 (as reiterated elsewhere in such passages as Psalm 136.4-9 and Acts 17.24-25) is God as the foundation of the universe and everything in it.

The hermeneutical question is: Do we clearly understand every detailed aspect of how we should properly interpret Genesis with respect to the old universe/old earth idea? The answer is: No.

I am not a scholar of biblical studies, linguistics, or ancient middle eastern culture. (I studied math and science in college, and work professionally with computer programming.) However, to represent the truth of the matter fairly and accurately, it must be recognized that there are a great many biblical, linguistic, and ancient middle eastern cultural scholars, ones who believe in a strong concept of biblical inspiration (i.e., a critical aspect of their hermeneutical approach is biblical inerrancy), who have presented various plausible interpretations of the biblical text, interpretations that are not flatly contradicted by the clear empirical information regarding the temporal duration of the universe and the earth.

For example, as I already pointed out, the use of the term "And there was evening and there was morning, a {x} day" in Hebrew is unique to Genesis 1. This specific word construction is not used anywhere else in the Bible. That fact, along with the fact of its specific repetition in Genesis 1, points to some kind of special intention in a literary manner.

Another example: In Genesis 1.1, the Hebrew meaning is not unequivocal. It can be translated "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." An equally valid translation is "When God began to create the heavens and the earth..." or "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth...."

Another example: In Genesis 1.2, the traditional translation is "The earth was without form and void...", but the word translated "was" could also be "became."

The idea of "phenomenological language" being used in the Bible (language that would teach a genuinely incorrect idea if interpreted from a literal and scientific perspective), or any kind of language and literature that is different from what you might think of as "literal historical narrative," is a fact. That it is not always so apparent has to do with the fact of our own human cultural "blinders." We are "embedded" in some of the very concepts that we may be trying to examine.

If we ignore the foreign cultural context of the message and try to interpret the text from a cultural context that is far removed from that of the author and the original audience, there certainly exists an increased risk of missing, or even completely perverting, significant elements of meaning because we are approaching the text from such a different cultural background.

Is it the purpose of Genesis to teach us a literally historical account of the creation of the universe, the earth, and humans? Or is something entirely different involved, with the message being "couched" in the "language" of the culture of the author and the original audience, a message that becomes literally wrong if interpreted as a literal history? (Even to use the word "history" can be misleading, because clearly Genesis is about history, but it is a history that is not expressed through or for the eyes of the modern Western world. Genesis certainly has a structure and a purpose. But that structure and purpose may be quite divergent from the approach that young earth advocates impose on it.)

It is this literary, cultural approach that I take to Genesis. This approach is not unique. It is not new. But it is certainly different from the hermeneutical approach that many young earth AND old earth advocates take. (I have called it a "metaphorical" approach, because that seems to me to be the best word to use. Perhaps you prefer some other term. As long as you understand what I mean.)

I quote from John T. Willis again (*Genesis*, pp. 96, 97, 98; all emphases are original):

...that biblical writers used earlier sources and borrowed from oral and written traditions originating in other nations and cultures is in complete harmony with the biblical teaching of inspiration. For one thing, the biblical authors themselves *claim* to use sources (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Sam. 1:18; 1 Kings 11:41; 14:19, 29; etc.). Paul does not hesitate to quote words from pagan poets (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12). Furthermore, if the inspired speakers and writers were serious about communicating the divine message to the people of their day, they had to use words, phrases, and concepts already familiar to those people. If they had invented or created new thought patterns to convey God's word, they would have *concealed* it rather than *revealed* it, because it would have been impossible for anyone to have understood them.

...The biblical speakers and writers used words, expressions, and literary structures that already existed in the world around them to communicate the word of God, but they applied what they used in ways radically different from the nations around them.

It is possible that Genesis 1 was written to or for an Israelite audience that had been attracted to or influenced by Babylonian or Canaanite (derived from Babylonian) mythological beliefs and that the author's purpose was to present a polemic against these beliefs. An effective means of doing this would have been to use Babylonian terminology in order to inject it with new meaning or to attribute to Yaweh what the Babylonians attributed to their gods.

Obviously, Genesis 1 (through 2.4a) displays a specific and intentional literary arrangement (one and four, two and five, three and six). Young earth advocates (and many old earth advocates) claim that this structure is chronological, because of a more-or-less "literalistic" view of some of the vocabulary used. However, to recognize that there is a clear structure to the account doesn't necessarily imply that chronology is implicit to the genuinely correct interpretation.

Dr. Davis A. Young, whom I have referred to before in this discussion (whose father, incidentally, is Dr. Edward J. Young, the conservative Old Testament biblical scholar; <grin>imagine the discussions in that family<grin>), has written ("Christianity and the Age of the Earth," in *Is God a Creationist?*, pp. 87, 88, 93):

We are dealing with God's world and with God-created facts.... We must handle the data reverently and worshipfully, yet we should not be afraid fo where the facts may lead. God made those facts, and they fit into His comprehensive plan for the world. God has brought the world into its current state of existence, and thus the facts of geology and all other facts owe their existence to His sovereign counsel. When a geologist finds a rock composed of 30% quartz, 40% alkali feldspar, 20% plagioclase, and 10% biotite, the rock is that way because God willed it to be so, not because the geologist made it up or because of fate or ultimate chance. The fact about that rock's composition is every bit as much a fact as any fact that can be found in the Bible. It is as true as any fact in the Bible. It is just as much a fact as the fact that Christ died for our sins. To be sure, it is a much less important fact. One's life will not be significantly different for either being aware of it or not being aware of it, but it is nonetheless still just as much a fact. It is a very different kind of fact from the facts we find in the Bible. The facts of the Bible are expressed verbally; those in nature are not. The facts of the Bible primarily tell us what we are to believe concerning God and what duty He requires of us. The facts of the Bible are ethically normative for our lives; the facts of nature are not. The Bible generally tells us what we ought to do; nature generally does not. Thus in the Bible and in nature we are dealing with different kind of revelation of God, with different kinds of facts, but we are dealing in both cases with facts divine origination....

...if we want to know what God wants us to do we listen to His words in the Bible, but in the study of nature the redeemed Christian also learns to appreciate the character of God as Psalm 19 and Romans 1 make plain. Creation reveals God's character and expresses His nature, although not in the same direct way that the Bible does.

The facts of the Bible and the facts of nature, therefore, do not disagree but form one comprehensive, unified expression of the character and will of our Creator and Redeemer. Nature and Scripture form a unity, for God is one. Although man, because of his sinful nature, reveals himself in inconsistent and contradictory ways, God *cannot* do so. But the fact that God's words and works are a perfect unity does not by any means indicate that we can always see how they agree or fit together....

Nature is also from God, and nature would lead us to believe that the Earth is extremely old. Scientific investigation of the world God gave us is an exciting enterprise that God would have us engage in. We do not need the flight-from-reality science of [young earth] creationism. We need a more vigorous approach to both nature and Scripture. May I plead with my brethren in Christ who are involved in the young-Earth movement to abandon misleading the public. I urge them study geology more thoroughly. Geology cannot be learned from a few elementary textbooks. There is far more to it than that. I also urge creationists to be less dogmatic about Scriptural texts over which there has been substantial diversity of interpretation within the historic Christian church. If they would be of service to Christ's kingdom, they should do some honest-to-goodness scientific thinking that takes facts seriously, facts that were created by the God they wish to defend and serve.

This, by the way, speaks to Dr. Marion Fox's concept of "Truth versus truth." My response to his concept is, simply, that it is irrelevant to this particular discussion. Truth, or truth, however you wish to look at it, must correspond to itself. I fully agree with Davis Young in that those who believe in biblical inerrancy cannot make some arbitrary distinction between kinds of truth in the sense of saying that, somehow, those facts over there (such as astronomical observations) don't really count if they contradict the interpretations (young earth creed) we have already developed from these facts over here (the biblical text).

I agree with Andy Bosher's comments on 7/8/99 when he said:

I do not see the need to think of different flavors of truth. I've always considered truth to be Truth (or is it Truth to be truth?) There is Reality that God made. We can learn about reality from the Bible and from reason. Isn't science just reason? I believe that God WANTS man to use reason to learn about the creation "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom 1:20)

The hermeneutical consideration here is that what you learn from science can and does indeed "feed back" into biblical interpretation. Of course, I keep raising the "case in point" of geocentrism.

Because many respondents in this discussion so strongly disagree with my conclusion (it is reasonable for Christians to accept biblical inerrancy and an ancient universe and ancient earth), they typically refuse to acknowledge any of the perfectly legitimate points that I have been making. Dr. Marion Fox described my epistemology as a "dangerous" one, not because he is able to show that there is something wrong with it per se, but simply because he disagrees with this conclusion that it leads to. (Of course, this is when I turned his claim around by showing that the epistemology that is genuinely dangerous is the one that says it is okay to use rhetorical "smoke and mirror" tactics such as the Moon & Spencer conjecture in order to try to cover up the truth of the matter.)

But this particular post is growing quite long (a lot of territory to cover), so I shall leave it here for now with some relevant online references, for those who are interested, to investigate hermeneutical considerations further:

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/inspdoct.htm

"Inspiration & Inerrancy," by Dr. M. James Sawyer

http://www.gospelcom.net/cccu/journals/csr/greidan.html

"The Use of the Bible in Christian Scholarship," by Sidney Greidanus; this is an excellent reference regarding hermeneutical considerations

http://www.discovery.org/fellows/progrea.html

"A Theology of Progressive Creationism," by Pattle P. T. Pun

http://capo.org/premise/95/sep/p950810.html

a discussion of "Author Centered Meaning" by Dwight Poggemiller

And here are some book references for you to consider:

http://www.zondervan.com/academic/208289.htm

Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation: Six Volumes In One, by V. Philips Long; Tremper Longman, III; Richard A. Muller; Vern S. Poythress; & Moisés Silva, General Editor

http://www.shawangunk.com/scichr/reviews/hummel86.html

review of Charles F. Hummel's *The Galileo Connection*

http://www.shawangunk.com/scichr/reviews/bube95.html

review of Richard H. Bube's *Putting It All Together*

Have a good week!

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)

[ TOP ]

[ TOC ]	[ PART 1 ]	[ PART 2 ]	[ PART 3 ]	[ PART 4 ]	[ PART 5 ]
[ PART 6 ]	[ PART 7 ]	[ PART 8 ]	[ PART 9 ]	[ PART 10 ]	[ HOME ]