Noticing the title, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, of one of the Related Posts that WordPress linked to my Were Adam & Eve Real? post, I noticed something curious, nowhere did he actually USE THE BIBLE to make his “Biblical Case” for Old Earth. I’ve noted that the Clergy Letter Project approvingly links the United Church of Christ’s pastoral letter on the subject, Not Mutually Exclusive, which uses the same tactic of saying that evolution [which requires long ages] and the Bible are not, well, mutually exclusive, BUT NEVER USES THE BIBLE TO MAKE IT’S CASE.
Because Old Earth Compromise Creationists CAN’T logically do so without making shipwreck of the Bible. This is why they quote science as their true and ultimate authority and then selectively try to magisterially demonstrate how science “sheds light on” the inerrant REVEALED Word of God!
So I commented on this fellow’s post, asking him these questions:
May I suggest that when you suggest that Answers in Genesis believes that dinosaurs are a fabrication when they in fact utilize them as “missionary lizards” that you make yourself look like a world-class idiot?
May I also note that in suggesting that the global Noachim Flood was only local that you have called God a liar, since He promised Noah afterward by an “everlasting covenant” that “the waters no more become a flood to destroy ALL FLESH,” [Gen. 9:15] yet if this did not refer to a worldwide flood we see that local floods abound and God is found faithless concerning His promise? Might I also note that you judge the apostle Peter as being in error when he validates a world-wide flood [2 Pet. 3:6]
Might I further note that the 4th Commandment [Exodus 20:11] has as it’s basis a literal 6-day interpretation of the Genesis Creation week, despite your assertions to the contrary?
Am I not correct to call you wholly inconsistent with regards to your approach to the Bible when you swallow the camel of the Resurrection and like New Testament miracles, though they are disputed by the same natualism-based science that gave us evolution, yet compromise the Bible’s plain meaning concerning a young Earth, especially in light of it’s clear definition of the Creation days and its intent as history as demonstrated by Genesis’ incorporation of geneaologies? [Note, C.S. Lewis used an objection to this effect, so I thought you might appreciate the irony, since you quoted him in reference to Aslan to support the notion that God is allegedly so incomprehensible that His REVEALED Word will never make sense to us, though we’ve been instructed to study to show ourselves approved, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.]
Am I not correct that Romans 5:12’s claim that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” contradicts the notion that man was formed by a cycling process of animal death and mutation, unless we shall say that the evolution of mortal, soul-less animals somehow resulted creation of immortal souled men, who lost their physical mortality at the Fall?
Might I not also charge that your compromise contradicts Christ’s authority, since He affirmed that God created Adam and Eve “from/at the beginning” [Matt 19:4; Mark 10:6] which is true if man was created on the 6th day of an approx. 6,000 +/- 850 years old, but it utter nonsense if man has occupied but the tiniest tail-end of billion[s] year old Earth history, much less can it be said that man was “from the beginning” if we take into account naturalism’s erroneously postulated age of the universe!
May I not at last note that your post is not informative, unless it is to inform us of the opinions of folks who believe their Bibles on some points but not on others and so to inform us of the dangers of this sort of compromise upon the faculty of reason?
Think about it. If you must ask the Serpent’s Question [“Did God really say?”], then Choose a side. As for me, I will answer, “Let God be true and every man a liar!”
After further consideration, I then challenged him:
Oh yes, and shouldn’t your “Biblical Case” for an Old Earth actually have some reference to the Bible, other than to trivialize the parts you disagree with as allegory and to speculate about how the plain meaning of the text might be altered to suit vast ages?
You do realize that the plain meaning of the text does not support your claim of an Old Earth. Allow me to cite the following quote from Jonathan Sarfati’s book Refuting Compromise [page 55 – I just like the way he words this argument]:
“If an old earth were really the teaching of Scripture, then one claim is glaringly conspicuous by its absence, that is, any claim in commentaries that the Bible unambiguously teaches long ages. Rather, usual claim is that the biblical text appears on the surface to teach a young earth but may allow for an old earth. We never hear something like, ‘Yes, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field and rapid reversals seem to provide irrefutable proof of a young earth. But we mustn’t allow even the strongest science to overrule the clear teaching of the Word of God that the earth is billions of years old.’” [In the original text, the words “unambiguously teaches” and “may allow for” were emphasized.]
Which brings up the question, Can a coherent Biblical Case be made for an Old Earth that does not make shipwreck of the Bible in the process?