An Appearence of Age

by John Morgan

When you read the words of atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins "Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose[1]," how do you react? Do you say "Of course they appear designed; they are designed." When you hear the argument that Christ did not really die on the cross, He only appeared to have died, how do you react? If someone came into your church teaching the Gnostic doctrine that Christ did not really have a physical body but only appeared to have one, how would you react? When presented with the popular Christian doctrine that the earth and universe are not really billions of years old but only appear to be old, how do you react?

Perhaps both old earth creationists and young earth creationists can agree on this: there is some irony associated with the appearance of age doctrine. There is irony in the fact that the appearance of age arguments parallel those of doctrines almost all Christians oppose. There is irony because those who embrace the appearance of age still embrace the truth that the heavens declare the glory of the God of truth. But, if the universe only appears old, then those heavens must be giving a false report and objects more than, say, 10,000 light years never really existed as we see them.

Still, many Christians have embraced some version of "Appearance of Age" related to the age of the earth and universe. This position states that God created the earth and universe with an appearance of age. Some hold Adam and Eve up as an analogy because he created them as adults. There was some necessity that God create Adam and Eve as adults so they would survive. Analogously, there was a need to create the earth with coal deposits, limestone deposits and the many other features that suggest long periods of time. Others take the tack that God is an artist or craftsman. A craftsman could make a table and give it a distressed finish so that it looked weathered. The craftsman is not lying. He is simply doing with his art as he wishes.

This whole issue raises many questions. And, at each point Christians should ask, "what does the Bible say?"

• What is the Bible's expectation about the trustworthiness of experience - sight, touch, etc.
• What does the Bible say about how we can know?
• What weight does the Bible give to evidence in general and historical events in particular?
• Does the Bible give any suggestion that the world, including the heavenly bodies are not real?
• If evidence contradicts verbal testimony or prophesy, which should we believe?
• Can I distinguish between an inspired message and my understanding of it?
• In the Bible, how did men of faith know things?
• What do the words of God or Jesus say about what should persuade us of the truth of a claim?

To read the entire article click here
This is a great site I just discovered called sword and spirit ,check it out.

When was Noah's flood?

Old Earth - Young Earth common ground?

In my discussions with those who hold a young earth view, I have experienced little if any common ground. It seems to me that the young earth perspective leaves little room for dialogue, because of their belief that any other interpretation is contradictory to Scripture. I am willing to admit that parts of the old earth view are somewhat difficult, but believe that a proper interpretation of Scripture and Science leads right to an old earth view. So how can reconciliation take place between the two views.

First and foremost, all who are debating this subject must understand that this is not a salvation issue. We don't come to Christ having to express on which side of the earth's age we fall in order to be saved.

I have some suggestions on how we need to dialogue. First, we should listen and consider what the other side is saying. Second, when defending your position don't get into a name calling game, but instead articulate why you believe what you believe or point out the flaws in you opponents arguments in a loving way. Third, answer your opponents charges first before going on the offensive. This means you better be prepared on how to defend your own views. Ask questions concerning your opponents views, before attacking a general belief that you believe they hold. Remember, above all, you are in dialogue with a fellow brother or sister in Christ.

Sometimes there is too much entrenchment for any progress to take place. I have experienced this in many discussions. It's OK if you get nowhere as long as you can dialogue and both parties are willing to continue to listen and talk in a respectful manner. What you want to avoid at all cost is any type of degradation of others. I have experience this as well, as I was told by a fellow Christian that I worshiped a different God than he did simply for asking questions of his view. Good dialogue is possible with an attitude of respect and a willingness to consider views different from your own.

Age of the Earth (Part 5)

The final approach to be considered on the Earth's age is the Non-Literal Approach. The one view that typifies this approach is called the Figurative Day approach. This view was supported by early church leaders such as Origen and Augustine. This view simply states that the six creation days are figurative. The days of creation were conveying spiritual truths of God's creation and are not meant to be taken as literal days.

A second view within the Non-Literal approach is called the Framework Hypothesis. This view holds that the orderly creation days are accurate and the six days are only figurative. This view is held by Charles Hummel and Meridith G. Kline. The last view to be considered is the Cosmological View. Karl Barth is one who supported this view. This view states that the six days are religious and theological statements about creation, in order to rival pagan myths.

* * Bowman, Robert, Scripture: Outline studies in Authority, Cannon, and Criticism, P. 59

Age of the Earth (Part 4)

A second approach that is used to account for an old earth is the long-day approach. This is the approach that I favor, because I believe it does the best job of reconciling science with Scripture. I will not say with 100% certainty that this is in fact the only approach that can be considered. For me, it best synchronizes my studies of science and Scripture. In this approach the word day (Yom in Hebrew) is to be understood as a long time period where God works by way of special creation.

There are two views of the Long-Day approach. The first is the Millennial-Day view. This view has each day lasting a thousand years. it is believed by some that the early Church fathers Ireaeus and Justin Martyr held this view. The second view is the Day-Age view. This is held by Gleason Archer and Hugh Ross. This is also the view I believe makes the most sense. Each day represents an unspecified length of time whereby God specially created everything. These two views do not hold to Darwinian evolution and should not be considered part of Theistic evolution. I will talk more in later blogs why I hold this view, but will also talk of some of the problems that exist with all these views.

* Bowman, Robert, Scripture: Outline studies in Authority, Cannon, and Criticism, P. 59

Age of the Earth (Part 3)

Looking at Genesis one, the Partial- Creation approach has six literal days where gaps of time exist to make for a old earth view (progressive creationism). The Gap theory, supported by Thomas Chalmers and C.I. Scofield, has the original creation existing in verse one. The Devil disrupts God's creation in verse two and the literal six days of creation begin on verse three. Genesis 1:1 would account for a long period of time before the six literal days of creation. The Hesitation theory has a long period of time in Genesis 1:1 again, followed by a literal six days of creation. This view is supported by William Stokes and Gorman Gray. The Intermittent view, supported by J. Barton Payne and Robert C. Newman. The intermittent view has six literal 24 hour days of creation with long gaps of time in between the creation days.

I do not lean toward any of these views, but if I had to chose the one I believe best matches Scripture and what we know scientifically, I would have to go with the Intermittent view. I personally hold to a Long-Day approach to creation which will be discussed on the next post.

Age of the Earth (Part 2)

The age of the earth is composed of various views as to how Genesis one should be interpreted. The young earth approach has basically only one view called the Plain-Day view. The six days of creation are believed to be a literal 24 hour time period for each day. Based on the six 24 hour days and the genealogical record, the age of the earth must therefore be 6 to 10,000 (some will go up to 50,000) years old. The Plain-Day view is held by Martin Luther, Henry Morris and Ken Ham.

The old earth(progressive creationism) interpretation has a myriad of of views as to how Genesis one is to be viewed. There are three approaches taken on this view: Partial Creation approach, Long-Day approach and the Non-Literal approach. The next blog will consider the various approaches of the Progressive Creationism view.*

_____________________
* Bowman, Robert, Outline Studies in Authority, Cannon, and Criticism, P. 59