Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Biblical problems with Norman Geisler's argument for Old Earth Creationism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Biblical problems with Norman Geisler's argument for Old Earth Creationism


    The following is response to Norman Geisler;'s argument for Old Earth Creationism. Old Earth Creationism is an attempt to synchronize Scientific evidence. It pretty comprehensive on the faulty Old Earth Creationist argument. It easily concludes when taking the whole of the Bible into consideration Young Earth Creationism is the only version that fits the texts without immense contradictions,

    This does nat address the fact that Young Earth Creationism is impossible, because the authors believe in Young Earth Creationism..

    Source: https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/answering-dr-norman-geislers-comments-on-genesis/



    Answering Dr. Norman Geisler’s Comments on Genesis


    by Biblical Science Institute | Jul 17, 2017 | Apologetics, Origins, Theology

    Why are Christians so reluctant to accept Genesis as written? Even many otherwise fine Bible scholars, such as Dr. Norman Geisler, are hesitant to fully believe the words of Genesis. On many other issues, Geisler reasons cogently and interprets Scripture with Scripture. But when it comes to Genesis, the rules of hermeneutics and logical thinking are thrown away to make room for deep time (millions of years). Why? This brings to mind the words of Christ as He lamented over the reluctance of the disciples to believe in the resurrection: “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25).




    Dr. Geisler recently wrote an article entitled “Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism?” Since the Bible explicitly teaches that God created in six days (Exodus 20:11) with Adam and Eve made on day 6 (Genesis 1:26-31), and since the genealogies only add up to a few thousand years (e.g. Genesis 5), the Bible does teach a “young” Earth (in the sense of thousands of years as opposed to billions). Therefore, if Scripture is inerrant, it follows logically that the Earth is young. But this is not Dr. Geisler’s conclusion. It is clear from his article that Geisler doesn’t want to accept the biblical timescale of creation. He works very hard to persuade the reader that there are multiple positions on Genesis that are compatible with inerrancy. Let’s examine his reasoning.




    First, we note that the title of Dr. Geisler’s article has a subtle evolutionary bias “…to Believe in Young Earth Creationism.” The term “Creationism” means the belief in creation, or the doctrine that God created. So the title is somewhat redundant: “to believe in the belief of creation.” Evolutionists often set creationism (the belief in creation) against evolution (without the “ism”) in order to imply that creation is a belief whereas evolution isn’t. It’s a rhetorical trick. But why did Dr. Geisler use this term? It was probably unintentional. But it does suggest that Geisler has been influenced by secular lines of thought.




    The age of the earth is a hotly debated issue among evangelicals. Old Earthers believe, like most scientists, that the universe is billions of years old.




    There seems to be a subtle appeal to authority in this statement: “like most scientists.” It’s probably a true claim, but is it relevant to the issue of biblical interpretation? When considering whether Christ literally rose from the dead, do we consult with scientists and include their majority opinion on the topic as an important factor in our interpretation of the biblical text? It could well be that many Christians are reluctant to accept the literal words of Genesis because they are intimidated by secular scientists. “The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted.” (Proverbs 29:25).




    Young Earthers, measure the age of the universe in terms of thousands of years. The debate is not new, but the insistence by some Young Earthers that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible demands a Young Earth position is relatively new.




    Inerrancy means that the Bible, in its original autographs, is entirely without error. That necessarily includes the timescale of Genesis, as well as everything else the Bible teaches. That the Bible teaches that “God created in six days” is certainly not a relatively new position. And if indeed the Bible teaches that, then inerrancy demands that we accept it as true.




    The Biblical Status of the Young Earth View




    In order to establish the Young Earth view one must demonstrated [sic] that there are (1) no time gaps in the biblical record and that (2) the “days” of Genesis are six successive 24 hour days of creation.




    First, neither of these claims is essential to establish a young Earth from Scripture. There are other ways to demonstrate the biblical timescale that bypass these conditions entirely. For example, we could point out that Jesus stated that God created the man and woman from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). This statement would make no sense if human beings were first created billions of years after the beginning of creation. But it makes perfect sense if they were created in the first week. Christ’s statement only makes sense in a young Earth, regardless of any alleged gaps in the genealogies, or regardless of whether the days are truly days – so long as they are short and not millions of years.

    Second, the issue of gaps in the genealogies is utterly irrelevant to the age of the Earth. The reason is that the Bible gives the age of person A at the time person B is born – regardless of whether person B is a child, grandchild, or great-grandchild. The timescale is unaffected. For example, “Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch.” (Genesis 5:18). Geisler’s point is that Enoch may actually be a grandson, or great grandson of Jared, rather than a son. But this has absolutely no effect on the age of the Earth. The timespan between Jared’s birth and Enoch’s birth is 162 years, regardless of how many people may have been in between. In like fashion, we can add up the ages between Adam and Abraham, and it comes out to around 2000 years. And both biblical and secular scholars agree that Abraham lived around 2000 B.C. So this puts the age of the Earth at around 6000 years – regardless of whether or not the genealogies have gaps.

    Third, it is very easy to establish that the days of creation are just that: days. There are other Hebrew words and phrases God could have used if He had intended to convey that creation took vast ages. And it is clear that the days are successive, as we’ll see below.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Reason for more of the argument . . .


    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The following is response to Norman Geisler;'s argument for Old Earth Creationism. Old Earth Creationism is an attempt to synchronize Scientific evidence. It pretty comprehensive on the faulty Old Earth Creationist argument. It easily concludes when taking the whole of the Bible into consideration Young Earth Creationism is the only version that fits the texts without immense contradictions,

    This does nat address the fact that Young Earth Creationism is impossible, because the authors believe in Young Earth Creationism..

    Source: https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/answering-dr-norman-geislers-comments-on-genesis/



    Answering Dr. Norman Geisler’s Comments on Genesis


    by Biblical Science Institute | Jul 17, 2017 | Apologetics, Origins, Theology

    Why are Christians so reluctant to accept Genesis as written? Even many otherwise fine Bible scholars, such as Dr. Norman Geisler, are hesitant to fully believe the words of Genesis. On many other issues, Geisler reasons cogently and interprets Scripture with Scripture. But when it comes to Genesis, the rules of hermeneutics and logical thinking are thrown away to make room for deep time (millions of years). Why? This brings to mind the words of Christ as He lamented over the reluctance of the disciples to believe in the resurrection: “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25).




    Dr. Geisler recently wrote an article entitled “Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism?” Since the Bible explicitly teaches that God created in six days (Exodus 20:11) with Adam and Eve made on day 6 (Genesis 1:26-31), and since the genealogies only add up to a few thousand years (e.g. Genesis 5), the Bible does teach a “young” Earth (in the sense of thousands of years as opposed to billions). Therefore, if Scripture is inerrant, it follows logically that the Earth is young. But this is not Dr. Geisler’s conclusion. It is clear from his article that Geisler doesn’t want to accept the biblical timescale of creation. He works very hard to persuade the reader that there are multiple positions on Genesis that are compatible with inerrancy. Let’s examine his reasoning.




    First, we note that the title of Dr. Geisler’s article has a subtle evolutionary bias “…to Believe in Young Earth Creationism.” The term “Creationism” means the belief in creation, or the doctrine that God created. So the title is somewhat redundant: “to believe in the belief of creation.” Evolutionists often set creationism (the belief in creation) against evolution (without the “ism”) in order to imply that creation is a belief whereas evolution isn’t. It’s a rhetorical trick. But why did Dr. Geisler use this term? It was probably unintentional. But it does suggest that Geisler has been influenced by secular lines of thought.




    The age of the earth is a hotly debated issue among evangelicals. Old Earthers believe, like most scientists, that the universe is billions of years old.




    There seems to be a subtle appeal to authority in this statement: “like most scientists.” It’s probably a true claim, but is it relevant to the issue of biblical interpretation? When considering whether Christ literally rose from the dead, do we consult with scientists and include their majority opinion on the topic as an important factor in our interpretation of the biblical text? It could well be that many Christians are reluctant to accept the literal words of Genesis because they are intimidated by secular scientists. “The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted.” (Proverbs 29:25).




    Young Earthers, measure the age of the universe in terms of thousands of years. The debate is not new, but the insistence by some Young Earthers that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible demands a Young Earth position is relatively new.




    Inerrancy means that the Bible, in its original autographs, is entirely without error. That necessarily includes the timescale of Genesis, as well as everything else the Bible teaches. That the Bible teaches that “God created in six days” is certainly not a relatively new position. And if indeed the Bible teaches that, then inerrancy demands that we accept it as true.




    The Biblical Status of the Young Earth View




    In order to establish the Young Earth view one must demonstrated [sic] that there are (1) no time gaps in the biblical record and that (2) the “days” of Genesis are six successive 24 hour days of creation.




    First, neither of these claims is essential to establish a young Earth from Scripture. There are other ways to demonstrate the biblical timescale that bypass these conditions entirely. For example, we could point out that Jesus stated that God created the man and woman from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). This statement would make no sense if human beings were first created billions of years after the beginning of creation. But it makes perfect sense if they were created in the first week. Christ’s statement only makes sense in a young Earth, regardless of any alleged gaps in the genealogies, or regardless of whether the days are truly days – so long as they are short and not millions of years.

    Second, the issue of gaps in the genealogies is utterly irrelevant to the age of the Earth. The reason is that the Bible gives the age of person A at the time person B is born – regardless of whether person B is a child, grandchild, or great-grandchild. The timescale is unaffected. For example, “Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch.” (Genesis 5:18). Geisler’s point is that Enoch may actually be a grandson, or great grandson of Jared, rather than a son. But this has absolutely no effect on the age of the Earth. The timespan between Jared’s birth and Enoch’s birth is 162 years, regardless of how many people may have been in between. In like fashion, we can add up the ages between Adam and Abraham, and it comes out to around 2000 years. And both biblical and secular scholars agree that Abraham lived around 2000 B.C. So this puts the age of the Earth at around 6000 years – regardless of whether or not the genealogies have gaps.

    Third, it is very easy to establish that the days of creation are just that: days. There are other Hebrew words and phrases God could have used if He had intended to convey that creation took vast ages. And it is clear that the days are successive, as we’ll see below.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Reason for more of the argument . . .

    Modern Christianity is hung up on literalism. It’s the equivalent of force-fitting square pegs into round holes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by whag View Post

      Modern Christianity is hung up on literalism. It’s the equivalent of force-fitting square pegs into round holes.
      It leaves a lot of splniers on the floor,
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        The following is response to Norman Geisler;'s argument for Old Earth Creationism. Old Earth Creationism is an attempt to synchronize Scientific evidence. It pretty comprehensive on the faulty Old Earth Creationist argument. It easily concludes when taking the whole of the Bible into consideration Young Earth Creationism is the only version that fits the texts without immense contradictions...
        Only if one overlooks all of the issues that YEC, or maybe more accurately a woodenly literal interpretation, itself raises.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Only if one overlooks all of the issues that YEC, or maybe more accurately a woodenly literal interpretation, itself raises.
          “Woodenly” implies literalism itself isn’t fixed and immovable. That’s the whole point of calling it “literalism.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by whag View Post

            “Woodenly” implies literalism itself isn’t fixed and immovable. That’s the whole point of calling it “literalism.”
            Like in most things biblical literalism comes in degrees in that very few of even self-professed literalists think everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally.

            For example, I doubt many Bible literalists will ever argue that Moses received a pair of tablets that had literally been written "with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18).

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Like in most things biblical literalism comes in degrees in that very few of even self-professed literalists think everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally.

              For example, I doubt many Bible literalists will ever argue that Moses received a pair of tablets that had literally been written "with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18).
              Conceding God has no fingers is hardly a sophisticated take on interpreting ancient literature. The same believer has no problem imagining a death angel unleashing real plagues or snake-bitten people looking at a serpent statue for healing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Like in most things biblical literalism comes in degrees in that very few of even self-professed literalists think everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally.

                For example, I doubt many Bible literalists will ever argue that Moses received a pair of tablets that had literally been written "with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18).
                Why? I always assumed it was like Dan. 5:5.
                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                Beige Federalist.

                Nationalist Christian.

                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Like in most things biblical literalism comes in degrees in that very few of even self-professed literalists think everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally.

                  For example, I doubt many Bible literalists will ever argue that Moses received a pair of tablets that had literally been written "with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18).
                  True, there are variations in both YES and OEC even though there are some basic beliefs in both, Most fundamentalist Christian do not literally interpret every phrase as having a literal meaning only..

                  The Church Fathers generally believed in a literal meaning of the Pentateuch, but with variations.


                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by whag View Post

                    “Woodenly” implies literalism itself isn’t fixed and immovable. That’s the whole point of calling it “literalism.”
                    There is literal and then there is woodenly literal. Woodenly literal takes "kick the bucket" as literally "knocking a container with the foot" even when context makes it clear that feet and buckets are not involved.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      There is literal and then there is woodenly literal. Woodenly literal takes "kick the bucket" as literally "knocking a container with the foot" even when context makes it clear that feet and buckets are not involved.
                      Yes, but no one does that, so that’s not the problem.

                      What people do, rather, is believe languages and nations arose from a stymied architectural project in the ANE:

                      The Tower of Babel

                      11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a]they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there.

                      3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricksand bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scatteredover the face of the whole earth.”

                      5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go downand confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

                      8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world.From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.


                      That’s acceptably literal in the Christian church and also wooden as it gets.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by whag View Post

                        Conceding God has no fingers is hardly a sophisticated take on interpreting ancient literature. The same believer has no problem imagining a death angel unleashing real plagues or snake-bitten people looking at a serpent statue for healing.
                        It more than suffices to demonstrate that unlike what you claimed, there are many levels or stages of literalism. That you sweep them all together is only going to get you erroneous results (GIGO).

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                          Why? I always assumed it was like Dan. 5:5.
                          It was the first example to come to mind. Perhaps I should've gone with one describing God's "wings."

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                            True, there are variations in both YES and OEC even though there are some basic beliefs in both, Most fundamentalist Christian do not literally interpret every phrase as having a literal meaning only..

                            The Church Fathers generally believed in a literal meaning of the Pentateuch, but with variations.
                            Massive variations. For instance some held that the days of Genesis 1 were literal consecutive 24 hour long days while others held that each day represented a period of a thousand years. And there were plenty of views between those two.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by whag View Post

                              Yes, but no one does that, so that’s not the problem.
                              Actually there have been those who approach it exactly like that. Interestingly, Conrad Hyers has pointed out that many of those who interpret it in an overly literal fashion are not religious and even atheistic.

                              "...one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies of creation is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism."

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
                              22 responses
                              98 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
                              25 responses
                              150 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cerebrum123  
                              Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
                              103 responses
                              560 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
                              39 responses
                              251 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                              154 responses
                              1,017 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X