| Theological Argument Supporting young earth position |
Dear Reader, Creation Science Alive was recently part of a young earth verses old earth debate at a local church. Our position supporting a young earth (as detailed in the Biblical account) was challenged by an elder who professed to believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures but felt comfortable interpreting them in a non-literal manner - based on his own feelings and opinions. Realizing that others may find themselves in the same situation, we have decided to eliminate some of the personal information and make the argument available to the general public for its use. The following is a revised version of our response to a meeting held with the pastor of this particular church and the elder in question, whom we will refer to as Elder XX. Additionally, the scientific argument supporting this position is currently being written. We will make it available on this website when it has been completed. Young Earth vs. Old Earth Debate - A Theological Argument We are very disturbed on several levels that transcend the realm of scientific creationism. There are many serious questions that have arisen as a result of our confrontation, which need to be addressed. Namely:
existed before the Fall of Man;
We will begin by supporting a young earth position strictly from a theological standpoint, as this is significantly more important to us than where one stands on issues of science. Before beginning, we would like to say that during our meeting with Pastor, we believe we made a grave error in arguing our respective positions based on science (although this position is well-supported scientifically). Anyone involved in studying science realizes that the interpretations of science change and are fallible. The more important issue for a church to be concerned about is how one interprets Scripture - especially an elder. Pastor graciously began the meeting by stipulating that all present believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. The problem that has since been exposed is centered on the meaning of the word "inerrant" and how one interprets it. According to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, "inerrant" is simply defined as "free from error". This surprisingly short definition contains huge meaning when applied to the Word of God. It goes beyond meaning that the Bible is true in philosophical and moral areas only, but literally means that the Bible is error free - and that means in totality, in every instance. To the Lallys and myself (RoseAnn Salanitri), and inerrant belief in the Bible means wholeheartedly supporting a literal interpretation of Scripture (in all areas, not just creation) where the Scripture is clear and straightforward. To be sure, there are times when a figurative interpretation is clearly justified from the context of the verse, i.e. Jesus is referred to as the "Lamb of God". The application of figurative interpretation should be prudent and clear, or one finds themselves on a slippery slope that can lead to heretical and perverse doctrines of all kinds. We simply do not have the license to decide for ourselves what we should or should not believe using figurative interpretation as a defense. Doing so leads to a relativistic worldview as opposed to a Biblical worldview. This is a significant argument that needs to be made before proceeding to the next point, which is the defense of a literal six-day creation week. Genesis 1:5b states: "So the evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1:8b states: "So the evening and the morning were the second day." Genesis 1:13 states: "So the evening and the morning were the third day." Genesis 1:19 states: "So the evening and the morning were the fourth day." Genesis 1:23 states: "So the evening and the morning were the fifth day." Genesis 1:31b states: "So the evening and the morning were the sixth day." We strongly believe that reading more into these verses corrupts their meaning, and would qualify as being "eisegesis" (bringing something more into the Scripture than what is clearly stated), a concept that Elder XX accuses us of doing in his rebuttal but practices himself. At the time of our meeting we did not know of any authoritative body that set forth rules for literal interpretation of the Bible, aside from common sense. We now do. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that the word "inerrant" when applied to Scripture refers to the "complete truthfulness of Scripture". The same body affirms the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to a literal, or normal sense, and denies the legitimacy of any meanings that are not supported by the literal sense (see Addenda B attached). The literal interpretation that the creation account as detailed in Genesis demands are supported elsewhere int he Bible. Exodus 20:9-11 states: "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work; you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day..." Exodus 31:17 states: "It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed." Genesis 2:2 can be considered the principle verse on which Ex. 31:17 rests. It states: "And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." Appreciating that Moses wrote and understood Exodus as well as Genesis, it should be hard to argue that the six days of Genesis mean something other than six days. Moses clearly states that the commandment regarding the rest of the Sabbath is based on the six-day creation account. The Bible clearly states that God created the universe in six days. Interpreting this some other way means abandoning what is clearly stated in the Bible to suit an evolution-inspired long age position. We must ask ourselves, if God wanted us to interpret the six days of creation as being literally a 24-hour period, how much clearer could He state it? Elder XX represented that his interpretation of a 15-billion-year-old earth is based on evolutionary teachings in the discipline of geology. (Actually he errs in this understanding as well because the 15 billion years is attributed to the age of the universe, not the age of the earth, which is significantly different in evolutionary dating.) A Biblical worldview rests on Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) not Scriptura sub Scientifica (Scripture subordinate to science of Scripture plus science). When Christians say they have a "Biblical worldview", it is understood to mean that they are saying they view the world through the lens of Scripture. In other words, Scripture drives how they interpret the world around them and the events and actions of their lives. Interpreting Genesis through the teachings of geology (an evolution entrenched discipline) does not meet the criteria of having a Biblical worldview. In this instance it qualifies as having an evolutionary worldview. At our meeting Elder XX indicated that he didn't believe in a worldwide flood (Noah's Flood), where all life, except for those on the ark, perished - although he professed to be exercising a literal interpretation. Once again, this requires abandoning what is clearly stated to support an evolution- inspired position. Genesis 7:19 states: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered." (Italics added for emphasis.) This verse makes it clear that the Flood was not a local flood, as Elder XX argued, but covered the entire world, which clearly makes it a worldwide flood. As far as whether or not all living things died, except for those on the ark, Genesis 7:21-23 states: "And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive." We have to say with great remorse and with some boldness as well, that anyone who doesn't believe in a worldwide flood doesn't believe in the inerrancy of a literal interpretation of the Bible. Additionally, logic dictates that if the flood were local, Noah wouldn't have had to spend 125 years of his life building an ark. He could have walked to the next continent faster! Nor would the Lord have had to bring animals to Noah to ensure their survival - they could have migrated as well - especially the birds! Not only does a local flood theory contradict Scripture, it also defies logic. (SEE PAGE TWO) |