YEC without the bible, possible?

Hello Meldinoor,
Thank you for answering this question. Yes, but same as now, it was not due to the words & context of the Bible itself, but due to sources outside of the Bible, namely greek philosophy. Interestingly, some wondered why God would take as long as six days.If I may be allowed to ask another question along the same line. If God really did create the world in six days, could He have communicated this any clearer, than what He has already done so in Genesis? How could He have made it any clearer, so that it would not be taken as metaphor?Edited by Minority Report, : Clarifying the question.

He certainly could have made it very clear, by simply leaving even a speck of physical evidence that pointed to that conclusion. But curiously enough, all the evidence discovered since 1800 points the other way.As some theist here has pointed out, "God wrote the rocks. Men wrote the Bible. Who are you going to believe?"

Interesting quote. It reminds me of what I heard years ago, from whom I can't remember, but it went like this:

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

As others have recently stated in response to your question, it would have been much clearer if there were any physical evidence of a young earth in nature. Since I believe God was responsible for the creation of the universe, I think he could have made his point about YEC in the rocks.

You are ignoring one thing. There is only one reality, therefore there is only one accurate interpretation.For example, let's say you are a defense attorney. The prosecution presents fingerprints found at the crime scene. An expert witness comes to the stand and points to the similarities between your client's fingerprints and the fingerprints found at the scene of the crime. During your cross examination you ask the expert witness the following question, "Couldn't these patterns of swirls and lines be produced by invisible fingerprint fairies?".Wouldn't this mean that there are two possible interpretations of the evidence? The scientific interpretation whereby fingers produce these swirl marks and the other interpretation whereby these swirl marks are produced by invisible fairies? Does the mere existence of an interpretation make it valid?Or is this even an interpretation? Invisible fingerprint fairies are not evidenced in any way. You can't perform experiments with invisible fingerprint fairies. So why even propose invisible fingerprint fairies to begin with? It becomes quite obvious that this is an ad hoc interpretation, an interpretation that is presented for the sole purpose of avoiding an unwanted conclusion. This is exactly what Young Earth Creationism is. It is a long list of ad hoc rationalizations that allow believers to ignore solid conclusions based on solid methodologies.As one example, how do creationists get around the rather obvious conclusion that ratios of radioisotopes in rocks are a reliable clock? There just had to be accelerated decay in the past because otherwise the age of the rocks do not line up with YEC dogma. This is not an interpretation of the evidence. This is forcing pre-conceived beliefs onto the data.Without previously held YEC beliefs there is simply no way anyone would interpret the data as being consistent with a young earth. None. It is as silly as interpretting fingerprints as the work of invisible fingerprint fairies.

If I might ask a few questions to gain a better understanding of your thinking:1) How did God select Adam and Eve to place in the garden?2) What, generally or precisely, is the soul you mentioned earlier?3) What do you understand to be the purpose for God's starting the human family?4) Are we humans aware of our soul?5) Can God communicate with us?Your answers will help me formulate better questions regarding the five people I mentioned in the message you quoted.Thank you in advance.

Hello Meldinoor, This does not really answer the question. The question was in regards to the actual wording of the Bible, and whether there was any better way of stating it, so that the text could in no way be misinterpreted as metaphoric/myth etc. Can you comment on this please?An overall re-occuring message of the Bible is that God chose to teach us using words, and that we are to have faith in God's words. How many times did Jesus say 'Haven't you read...', or 'It is written...'? Jesus confirmed what was already well understood, that the scriptures were the very words of God. Saying that God could have made a clear point in the rocks, is in total disregard to what God has already said in the scriptures.Also I do believe there is evidence in the rocks, but only if viewed from the perspective that a worldwide flood actually occured.

I admit these are challenging questions. I'm not a biblical scholar, and I'm certainly not God, so I will only offer my rather limited guesses at your questions. I'm not sure how they pertain to this thread, but I have a feeling that you'll be able to connect it in some way. So here goes:1. Ask God. Maybe Adam and Eve were the first humans to be given souls (although, if they lived 6000yrs ago, I think that's unlikely). The garden may have been metaphorical, as may Adam and Eve.2. The soul is whatever part of you that carries on to the afterlife. Since emotion, memory, personality etc can be explained through physical processes, I'm not sure what that leaves. Some sort of consciousness presumably. If you know anyone who's had a near-death experience, they can probably guess better than I can.3. To set an example for how God wanted families to be, presumably.4. Are you? I don't go around thinking about my soul all the time. Humans are self-aware, but so are chimps, dolphins and elephants, so I don't think that has anything to do with it. I don't even know what a soul is, except that it must be some sort of spiritual component to a person's being. I'll leave it at that.5. He does in the Bible many times. He even takes on human form in the New Testament. A lot of people claim to communicate with God on a personal level. I believe God communicates with me, through the world, through His book, and even at a personal level at times.I have faith in the messages the Bible conveys. I don't treat it as a science book, certainly not the first chapters of Genesis, which to me, reads like allegory. As long as you take this approach you don't need to struggle to fit observational evidence with the Bible.I'm curious to see where you're going with these questions.Edited by Meldinoor, : Fixed a typo

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I for one avoid applying bias and perspective as much as I can when looking at the data. I think that makes for a more objective interpretation, but I won't digress any further on that. Instead I will try my utmost to reply to your question.The Bible uses several types of literature. Some of it is lyrical, like the psalms. The first chapter of Genesis hints at being lyrical. It even has a recurring chorus: "And there was evening and there was morning" which provides structuring and aids in the memorization of the passage. Remember, before it was written down, people had to memorise the story. Giving it a structure and dividing it into "verses" (days) and "choruses" would have made remembering it easier. Perhaps not making a nod in the direction of poetry would have made it easier to interpret literally."And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so."A recurring theme is that God commands, and then it is. It doesn't say: God gathered the water to one place. But that he commanded it and it was so. Seems to me he might be letting a created agent (laws of physics) do the job."Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds."*Notice that God commands the "land" and it "brings forth".The Earth bringing forth and God creating is used interchangeably in the passage, possibly implying that from God's point of view, the two really mean the same thing."And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds."Here's an example of the two being used together. The ground brings forth = God creates. But from our perspective, God has created the ground (or the planet) through physical processes (the planet's formation is not described in Genesis, probably because the writers didn't know what a planet was, or that they lived on one), and the planet has been given the ability (requirements) to produce life in all its diversity.I'd say not having the ground "bring forth" would have made a better case for a young earth."The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam"Adam means man, or human presumably (I may be wrong). This makes me wonder if even Adam was a metaphor for the human race."In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"Tree of life, and tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are amazing plants. I know of no plants in the world that have the ability to convey knowledge. I wonder if the trees might have been metaphors for something else. The tree of life = The desire for immortality perhaps? Something people have always sought and something that we will be awarded with in heaven where the tree of life stands. The tree of knowledge may have represented our desire to become our own judges of morality. But this is just my own speculation.If it had said: The tree of life was similar to the pine tree, but with purple pinecones and the tree of knowledge of good and evil is related to gopherwood, then it would have been clear that it was referring to actual trees."Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?""Snakes are not very crafty. At the best they can find a nice warm spot to sunbathe in. However, Satan is often referred to metaphorically as a serpent, even in revelation. Satan was also created by God. Notice that it doesn't say he was a wild animal, only that he was craftier than the animals. Another metaphor added to the picture. It doesn't point anymore to the age of the earth, but the fact that there are so many possible metaphors makes a point about how the text should have been interpreted."But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."They didn't die that day. Nor the next day. Nor the day after that. Funny how day suddenly has a metaphorical meaning to it, isn't it?Some of my points may be wack. I'm not a Bible scholar. But I think there are enough suggestions in the text for it to be metaphorical. I think if all the points I brought up were addressed and changed in the text, then perhaps a more literal interpretation may have been easier to reach.*Notice that evolution does not violate animals and plants reproducing by their "kinds". An animal will never give birth to a separate species, but through gradual change, a population of animals may become significantly distinct from another population that it can be called a new species. Genesis doesn't rule that out.- I notice that I have now made enough posts to be awarded the title of fully-fledged member of evcforum *proud* Yay!Edited by Meldinoor, : Added footnoteEdited by Meldinoor, : Added another little noteEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Also I do believe there is evidence in the rocks, but only if viewed from the perspective that a worldwide flood actually occured.

---

That is quite misleading. Firstly it is not enough to assume (despite the evidence) that such a flood occurred, you must also assume (again despite the evidence) that it was responsible for a significant proportion of existing geology. Already this treads close to begging the question.When it is noted that YEC "flood geologists" cannot identify "flood" rocks by the geological evidence it becomes clear that the young age is assumed at the beginning rather than derived from evidence.

Already said in the scriptures? Are you saying the Torah was written before the rocks were laid down? I don't think even your scriptures agree with you there, MR.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Hello Meldinoor,
Congratulation on you membership status.Yes I agree that Genesis contains lyric & chorus to aid remembering, but this does not necessarily hint to it being a metaphor. How do memory aids such as lyric & chorus suggest metaphoric language or suggest that Genesis is not true? Plus repeating the chorus 'and there was evening and there was morning', is the author's attempt to make absolutely clear we understand each day was a literal 24 hour day. Taking such a 'chorus' out of Genesis would make it more easy to dispell it as being metaphoric.I am still pondering the rest of you post. Will reply to that ASAP.

No. And I don't know how you could possibly read that from my statement.

From the plain words that you wrote, MR. Scripture wasn't "already" when the Siberian Traps erupted.Reality trumps written-down origin myth. Every time.

Interesting point, Minority. I think your point is very valid. I'm not saying that "evening and morning" being a sort of mnemonic makes it necessarily a metaphor, but that it provides an alternative purpose for that line which means it doesn't have to be interpreted literally.I want to be careful not to stray off topic too far. This thread isn't so much about individual arguments, as why we have the same evidence, but believe differently. How much do we rely on the Bible versus evidence, and do we try to make one fit the other, or are they already in agreement. The point of my last post, and I think your question, was to see if there is a purely biblical reason to believe in YEC.We're still on topic, in fact, your question is the same as my OP, just turned around. I asked, is there reason to believe in YEC from a purely science based standpoint, and you asked from a purely biblical standpoint. Let's just be careful to avoid getting too hung up on individual arguments, that we miss the point of the thread.My question to you now, Minority, is: Do you agree, based on the arguments I laid forth in my last post, that it is possible to interpret Genesis from an Old-Earth perspective? I'm not asking about your interpretation, just whether you think it is possible that Genesis could be referring to a creation spanning more than 6 days, and involving natural processes? From a purely scriptural point of view. Look at what you're saying. I'm not sure if I've understood you correctly, but it looks like your saying that God couldn't have made a clear point in the rocks, or that he chose not to. Scripture does not only tell us to go to scripture, in fact, it encourages us to look at God's work in nature.Psalms 19:1 - 2:
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

---

Dude#1: Job 10:9 says: "Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again?" So are we literally made out of dirt?
Dude#2: Yes. We should always read the Bible literally.
Dude#1: Job 10:10 = "Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese". So are we more toward edamer or brie?
Dude#2: ...Ecclesiastes 3:18-20
18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [b] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.Was Solomon an evolutionist?