Thoughts on YEC v OEC debate

 

You Tube Video: Click here!     

    We do not waste our time on these debate which are non-essential areas. We have a call, a mission, a separated life to walk with God in his ways. We live in this world to serve and preach saving knowledge of God and struggle with a hope of future glorification. 

    The debate between two creationism positions shall not settle down ever nor there will be any common grounds for them to unite together. This is toxic reality. neither of them accept the subject as matter of salvation. The only thing that matters is their goal. Their debate is going too far from the Gospel and its defense to unnecessary tangential discussions. 

    YEC is obsessed with unnecessary contents like days of creation and age of earth while OEC with concordism. having said this, it is true that creation matters. Our interpretation of early chapters of Genesis affects all other books of the Bible and the way we understand the Gospel. However, we must also know the intent of Genesis and its goal while thinking this. 

    Genesis early chapters are not necessarily assessment on material creation but most likely functional and relational as John Walton argues. As certain Biblical Hebrew linguistics and scholars assert, Genesis 1:1 doesn't necessarily point to an absolute beginning but an indefinite period of chaotic state long before creation week ever began. While saying this, even if Genesis has to do with material creation account, it isn't necessary that the account literally depicts natural chronological history but can also be a relational. Other plausible and possible views include a polemic over Ancient Near Eastern accounts of polytheistic environment which seems more likely interpretation. whatever the views be, Genesis is more interested in theological and philosophical approach rather than scientific. 

    OEC tries to concord everything with modern science while YEC tries to keep scripture above science in its plain teaching. Both are guilty of faulty interpretations. 

    Finally, we need to be open and weight both sides of debates. The only thing to avoid is being "dogmatic".

***