Here’s Randy Alcorn’s opening paragraph on the matter:
First let me say that many sincere people believe in the Bible and also believe in an old earth. They do this via the gap theory or day age theory or some other means of interpretation. (emphasis added)
Mr. Alcorn has already taken a position and assumes that even if you’re a sincere believer, to believe in an old earth is wrong.
Mr. Alcorn continues:
But when I am asked what Genesis appears to be saying, it is not so vague. To me it just seems so difficult to find other positions in Genesis 1, other than the literal 24-hour days position, without importing them. Hard to see them there to export! I have read widely the Intelligent Design material and I like it. I believe it certainly serves a good purpose, but its assumption of the old universe may not be valid. (emphasis added, read full post… )
HT: Jeff
It seems to me that Mr. Alcorn is the one actually doing the importing and exporting. Mr. Alcorn (1) importation: assumes that the ancients were preoccupied with the age of the earth; and (2) exportation: therefore the six days must be literal 24-hour days.
Furthermore, through some additional importing and exporting of his own, Mr. Alcorn has both Jesus and Paul as young earthers.
Well said, TC
One problem with the 24 hour day theory is that the sun, moon, and 24 hours days weren’t established until the fourth day. How could the first three days be measured if the system of measurement wasn’t yet setup?
Joel,
I see you’re in agreement.
Duane,
Good point, but I think our reading of the text is the ultimate problem: material vs functional.
So do you agree with the following statement? I pulled it from a book review of John H. Walton’s “The Lost World of Genesis One”
“Since the seven days are not really days but steps to the inauguration of the cosmos as God’s temple, then the Bible has nothing in it about the actual age of the earth. Also, since Genesis 1 focuses on the functional ontology, the mechanisms at which material objects come around is also not known by the Bible. As a result, people have the capacity to hold a belief in the Bible yet consider the scientific evidence of the age as God’s mechanism to create the earth.”
Well, sir, Moses wrote genesis when the time scale of days were around. so therefore, it couldve been just days
Turn it around: Randy is a sincere person and believes in the Bible and also believes in a young earth.
I don’t believe what he said says what you think it does.
Because he knew it would be?
Jeff
Sorry I messed up the quote. The top part should be by itself.
I suppose that could be the case, but I understand the first day as the creation of space, matter, and energy; the second the introduction of gravity and a spinning earth to gather waters. I used to hold to a literal 24 hour day but agree with TC that it is an exportation that I don’t need to make.
TC:
Just to clarify, I am not sure what you think Alcorn is importing into the text. I read the Alcorn essay and I am not sure what you mean. Can you provide a specific quote of what you mean?
Duane:
I have never found your point persuasive one way or another since it is possible that a twenty four hour day was built into the the solar system by design rather than a result of the creation of the solar system. Or in other words, the sun and earth were synchronized to fit the time that God already intended for them. Another consideration is the fact that we often speak of the past in terms of the present. For example, one might say, “I met my wife in high school.” Technically, the person you met in high school was presumably not your “wife” yet since you have just met. But you are speaking in terms of the past in light of the present. In a similar way, one could speak of days in the past before there were technically days. But in any case, either one of these explanations make the “problem” not to be much of a problem in my opinion.
Charles,
Alcorn’s focus is on material creation. That’s the importation. It is problematic.
I know both young and old earth creationists, and I have yet to see what difference it makes in being a dedicated follower of Christ. If the ancients understanding of how the universe worked was limited, I can understand how God’s revelation to them was made in a way they could comprehend. God created, we turned away from Him, and He had to save us from our sins. For me, it is much more important to be about the Father’s business.
John,
Some young earthers are not as accomodating as you. Some indeed question one’s orthodoxy.
T.C., it seems that too often, Creationism to seen as the test of Orthodoxy. I have yet to see it made so in Scripture, or even in communities using Scripture, until lately.
Duane,
If the ancients believe the existence of a thing (ontology) is primarily about its function, then, yes, I agree with Walton.
The age of the earth is not the focus, then.
Joel,
I’m with you. I’m still waiting for a convincing demonstration from the text of Scripture.
I actually tossed a lecture called “The Theology of Creation” because it became a test of Orthodoxy.
I am not holding it against anyone who believes in an old earth.
I just do not understand why the topic keeps raising it’s head. There is nothing new under the sun for either side. I do want to point out that there are proponents on both sides that won’t let the matter rest once they find out you are not in their corner and treat those with differing beliefs like they have the intellect of a slug. Not the best method for being heard IMHO.
Bitsy,
So you’re a young earther.
My only concern is this: that some continue to make the matter a test of orthodoxy.
Besides, the findings of science have made that matter interesting.
I understand what you are saying about the test of orthodoxy TC. I don’t agree with that, but what do we call it when it comes from an old earther and sounds like the young earther doesn’t have any intellectual discernment (or just any intellect
)?
Yes, I’m away of that intellectual snubbery as well, esp. due to the findings of the scientific world.
I don’t think Alcorn takes it as a test of orthodoxy either (and neither do I).j
I think he was just talking about what he believes and I happen to believe the same except for the redemption part at the end as written about in the comments on my post.
It will be interesting to see what the findings of science are 500 years from now.
Jeff
The thing that turned it to a “new earth for me was the fact that it seems the insects were not created until Gen. 1:20 (day 5) while plants were created in verse 11 (Day 3). It is my understanding that we need the insects to pollinate the plants. If that is so, then we need insects right along with plants – next couple of days anyway – not thousands or millions of years later.
Make it a thing of orthodoxy? No – but it will make a difference in how literally you interpret scripture.
Jeff,
I don’t think anyone should make it a test of orthodoxy either.
Iris,
I’ve seen those types of arguments to try and make sense of the various creatures and so on.
But in the end, if we adopt a functional approach to the creation account, the matter of the earth’s age doesn’t really matter.
Why it came into existence is the genius of it all.
We tend to argue about the details, but – I agree that this isn’t even the purpose of Genesis 1. The major theme, and the one that really matters, is that God created. Once you have that, you have all you need.
Kevin,
Spot on.
The functional nature of things.
Pingback: Archeological Dig Reshaping Human History | The Church of Jesus Christ
Another angle on the whole question is how the Bible deeply challenges our modern presuppositions. Walton’s trying to get back to the ancient worldview with a “functional ontology” over against our modern “material ontology.” What is interesting to me is that how much more personal God’s creative act is as an act of authority creating purpose rather than an act of power creating stuff. If power stands behind creation I have no one to deal with. If authority is behind creation, I do. A right reading of Genesis ought to pull us into a radical reorientation of our understanding (ala Rom. 12:2). I find a surface reading of Genesis 1 dangerous. The Old Earth, Young Earth dialogue ought to throw us into a different kind of conversation around Gen. 1. I think Walton is trying to do that.
Genesis is historical narrative. From what I recall, the Hebrew ‘yom’ means a day, in the sense we know a day. I don’t THINK it can also mean, era, epoch, time, age etc. In any case, “there was evening, and morning,” seemingly clarifies it. Why does everyone have such trouble with that?
Also, God very well could have created things to appear old, and to be measurably ‘old’…by whatever standards modern man would understand.
So, God is deceptive?
God could have created the earth with creative attributes that make it appear older than it is.
He may have made the light from the stars reach the earth right off the bat is another example. I don’t think that’s deceptive.
Jeff
Victor,
I’m not doubting that Genesis 1 is historical narrative. But here’s the crucial question: Of what? The Hebrew yom is not so limited.
But that’s not the real issue of the Genesis narrative, is it?
Jeff, if appearances are deceiving, then the one creating such thing is the deceiver. Having the Star Light shine forth immediately is not such an act, but an act of the power of God to bring forth light – it doesn’t compare.
All this conversation is around creation as a “material” experience, meaning, no stuff existed until God created the stuff. The question around Gen. 1 then becomes, “Did God really created the stuff in 6 literal days or not?” What if this conversation is thoroughly modern, revealing a materialistic bias in our worldview?
Is there another option? What if Gen. 1 flies in the face of our modern (usually arrogant) worldview? What if Gen. 1 challenges us to think about existence in a radically different way? What if Gen. 1 is to be read in light of the “Book of Creation” and the “Book of the Word.” What appears to be problematic may be because of our modern orientation. The ancient concept of “functional ontology” might change the whole conversation, reconcile competing views, and say something startling about God, ourselves, and reality.
“Dont be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Now there’s a challenge.
I appreciate Kyle’s comment. It, and others above, poses a similar line of questioning to my own. Ever since I explored this topic as an assignment in my CoE Reader training, I have continued to reflect on , and modify , my then conclusions.
Two examples:
1) So the qualified “Yom” used in Genesis 1 describes a normal day. But whatever Moses wrote – and yes I do feel Moses was responsible for the substance at very least of the Pentateuch – how sure can we be that his readers have necessairily understood it in the precise way we tend to. Was the purpose of Genesis 1-3 to describe in detail how God brought it all about?
2) A YEC follower will take the geanealogies as precise statements. Again would the early readers have understod them in terms of A was the ancestor of B. Especially as the individual examples through Scripture all differ in subtle ways?
So are YECs using similar rationalistic, scientific worldview lenses to those of the secularist? In contrast we need to be clear when we should regard an apparent narrative as factual in our Western worldview sense, or we are on the slope leading to demytholgising.
This is a good discussion.