This i part satire of the Big Daddy YEC tracks of yore: https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp. I do not post it be offensive to YEC’s, but because the arguments here are primarily Scriptural, and interesting. I presume you agree with the final pane:
But I am curious about your thoughts on his hermeneutical and theological points too. Here are a few, but you’d have to read the original version to see them all.
Please do forgive the satirical nature of this cartoon. I’m not sure I could bring myself to depict a YEC quite like this. Even though I have several experiences much like this, not all YECs are close minded angry people. I’m more curious about the specific textual points that are being raised, and how you deal with them.
For me, being raised in a YEC household, finding out that YEC interpretations where not traditional interpretations at all was the most shocking. The theology had a very recent “origin” our scientific context, and could not be found in this way among, for example, the Church Fathers.
I am perfectly content to discuss the arguments while ignoring their satirical delivery!
I often find it interesting how some try to set up the Gospel and young earth creationism as mutually exclusive (or imply that YEC somehow obscures the Gospel)…This is generally false. I have been able to argue for YEC in the origins debate for years without making that the center of my faith! Jesus is the center of our faith, but that does not mean that the origins debate is a futile endeavor and we should simply ignore origins…
As far as grace always being the plan, this has more to do with God’s omniscience (which is a fascinating [albeit brain-twisting] subject). As far as God’s creation still being very good, I am not sure how they use Romans 1:20 to justify that statement (and if they do, it’s a stretch at best).
I don’t even understand what he is trying to prove with the assertions made in the first caption (and the second one quote mines Job 38 which is written in semi-poetic language and indicates that “the morning stars” are synonymous with angels.
Romans 1:20 again? They conveniently refrain from quoting the verse directly. The fallen world does not falsify Romans 1:20 in the slightest. Romans 1:20 deals more with the concept of the natural knowledge of God. As for meat in Isaiah 25:6…After the flood, God gave humans the permission to eat meat. Besides, Isaiah 25:6 doesn’t even directly mention meat (at least, the ESV [which is what I read]), and the book of Isaiah is famous for speaking of an end of predatory behavior (try Isaiah 11). As for Revelation 21, I typically shake my head and move on from arguments that start with “why did God/the Bible do/say _____ instead of _____,” but suffice it to say that the new creation (as it is described) will have differences from the original. Just actually read revelation.
Well, there are my thoughts on these interesting (albeit fraudulent) little arguments. Thanks for sharing!
(Update: It is a distinct possibility that I should have read the entire tract before refuting…I was under the impression that these were isolated cartoons that were not integrated into a sequential comic strip…Oh well.)
(P.S: I appreciate that you refrained from posting the most satirical frames ).
However, have you seen the Big Daddy cartoon? It is atrocious. Far worse than this comic.
I’m not sure I agree. It may be generally false for you, but is it really generally false for most of the YECs you know in the debate? What about AiG?
Making YEC a condition for the Gospel (as some are wont to do) does obscure the Gospel. I understand that is not your pattern, but it is fairly common. I imagine you would have a problem with it too when you encounter it.
Well, in all honesty, that is how I often feel about YECs regarding Genesis. When I read Genesis 1 - 4, it seems to require incredible gymnastics to make it anti-evolution and anti-old earth. I’m still not sure what the actual conflict is here.
By the way, he gifted me a copy of his book. Very sadly, I forgot to get a picture with him! You might enjoy it. I’d be curious your take on his reading of Genesis 1 to 11.
I am sure that if you were to ask someone from AiG what they believed in for their salvation, they would say Jesus (not YEC).
Many (if not most of the) aspects of the creation account do not blend well with evolutionary thinking, which is why it is consequently considered anti-evolution. At any rate, it takes far more “gymnastics” to make Genesis pro-evolution.
It is always important to remember, however, that a person’s salvation depends on victory which has already been won for us int Jesus Christ, not what one believes about origins. However, the origins issue is still a relatively important one (a 1st article issue!), which is why we are discussing it.
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
6
