The Instigator
tstor
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Sabata76
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Day-age creationism is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
tstor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 440 times Debate No: 80833
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

tstor

Pro

This will be a debate as to whether or not day-age creationism is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I will be arguing that it is, so accepting this debate means you will be arguing that it is not. To clear up any confusion, I will define some vocabulary:

literal - taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory (in this case, the word "day" in Genesis)

day-age creationism - an old earth creationist view where the "days" in Genesis are longer than 24-hour periods

If you have any questions/concerns, then please voice them in the comment section before accepting the debate. The rounds will be structured as so:

Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Initial Argument(s)
Round 3 - Rebuttal(s)

DO NOT:
-post arguments in round one
-rebuttal my initial argument(s) in round two
-post new arguments in round three

This debate is open to anyone who wishes to accept, there is no selection criteria. Enjoy!
Sabata76

Con

Hello sir, I accept your challenge in the position against day age creationism as being consistent with literal interpretation of the Bible. I accept your definition of the terms "literal" , "day" , and "day-age creationism" and look forward to a healthy, enlightening debate, as well as your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
tstor

Pro

If one looks at Genesis, they will read that God created all things in a six “day” period. A young earth creationist (YEC) will argue that these days are 24-hour periods of time, as they are today. An old earth creationist (OEC) will argue that these days are finite, but long periods of time. I believe that both positions can rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

What does the Bible say?
*all verses are NIV renditions*

If we examine the word used for "day" in the creation account of Genesis (Gen. 1:4, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; 2:2) we will find that the Hebrew word "yom" is used. How can we define "yom"? The word generally has four recognized literal definitions: a portion of the daylight hours, all the daylight hours, a 24-hour period, or a long but finite time period¹ . With that being said, we immediately see that a finite period of time is acceptable for a literal reading.

If we can objectively prove that one of the seven days listed in Genesis was longer than 24-hours, then we can then remove a barrier saying that the days must be 24-hours. With the exception of day seven, each of the creation days end with "There was evening, and there was morning." The reader will notice that day seven is open-ended. This is brought up in various other scriptures such as Psalm 95:7-11, John 5:16-18, and Hebrews 4:1-11. Those verses tell us that day seven began after the creation of Adam and Eve and have continued into the future. This is further explained in Revelation 21, which tells us that the seventh day will eventually end.

Since the seventh day is obviously continuing past a 24-hour period, it can provide insight as to how we shoul interpret the initial six days. As well, the interpretation of a 24-hour period is inconsistent with the other creation accounts of the Bible.

What do the scholars say?
*Superscripted numbers are in reference to the sources*

"The ancient creation view was held by conservative theologian whose Reference Bible helped publicize the famous 'gap' theory (which proposed an age-old earth before Adam). Scofield wrote of genesis 1:1:
The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages. . . . The frequent parabolic use of natural phenomena may warrant the conclusion that each creative ‘day’ was a period of time marked off by a beginning and ending." ²


"What does day mean in the days of creation?

The answer must be held with some openness. In Genesis 5:2 we read: 'Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.' As it is clear that Adam and Eve were not created simultaneously, day in Genesis 5:2 does not mean a period of twenty-four hours.

In other places in the Old Testament the Hebrew word day refers to an era, just as it often does in English. See, for example, Isaiah 2:11,12 and 17 for such a usage.
The simple fact is that day in Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by day in Genesis." ³


"Now, when it comes to the days of Genesis...I'm of the view on this that while we ought not allow science to dictate to us our exegesis of the Old Testament, nevertheless, if there is an interpretation of the Old Testament that is exegetically permissible-- that is, and old age interpretation; that is to say, if you can find conservative, inerrantist, evangelical Old Testament scholars that say that the interpretation of this text that treats the days of Genesis as unspecified periods of time, and that is a completely permissible thing to do on exegetical grounds alone, then my view is that that is a permissible option if it harmonizes the text with science because that option can be justified exegetically, independent of science." S08;


Sources

[1] R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 370-71; William Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies: Hebrew English and Chaldee Lexicon and Concordance (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978), 109.
[2] C.I. (Cyrus Ingerson) Scofield, 1909 Scofield Reference Bible.
[3] Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time; The Flow of Biblical History (1972), 59.
[4] Dr. James P. Moreland, Lecture at Northshore Church in Everett, Washington on February 2, 2002.
Sabata76

Con

Sabata76 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tstor

Pro

Extended.
Sabata76

Con

Sabata76 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
NothingSpecial99
tstorSabata76Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
tstorSabata76Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.