http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/36820

From: Steve Heiden
Date: 10/24/2001
Subject: Some Fallacies of Young Earth Creationism

Dear BereanSpirit discussion participants and readers,

I recently participated in a discussion on the subject of young earth creationism. I have edited the discussion together into an Argument/Reponse format, and I'm sharing it with you here for your consideration and, hopefully, edification. Please note that the arguments listed as "YEC Argument" are real arguments actually made by a young earth creationist, and not simply straw man arguments that I'm incorrectly portraying as being YEC arguments.

In BereanSpirit tradition, should anyone wish to discuss the issues I raise here, I will, of course, do so. If you want to discuss a particular issue, it might be best to break out the topic under its own heading when you post to the list. For example, if you wanted to discuss my comments about the text of Genesis, and you also wanted to discuss my comments about astronomical science, then you might want to address these in two separate posts.

Without further comment, the discussion follows.

Sincerely,
Steve Heiden

YEC Argument:

What young earth creationists are attempting to point out is that Christians who deny what the Bible teaches about creation are inconsistent in their doctrine.

Response:

Christians who think that the doctrine of young earth creationism is incorrect also make this very point: Christians who deny what the Bible teaches about creation are inconsistent in their doctrine. Just because a Christians rejects a particular humanly-devised doctrine about creation, based on what he or she thinks are very good reasons, this does not mean that he is denying "what the Bible says about creation." It only means that he is denying "what young earth creationists say the Bible says about creation," and since man's word is not God's Word, disagreement with young earth creationists does not constitute disagreement with God. Not only is there nothing wrong with being critical of a fallible human interpretation of the Bible (in this case, the doctrine of young earth creationism), critical examination of religious teaching is something that the Bible itself tells us we should engage in.

There is also the related consideration that Christians who add their own fallible human interpretations onto the Bible and then turn around and confuse their own human ideas as being the same as God's Word itself are being inconsistent in their doctrine. Since their words are not God's Word, it is wrong to make statements based on the false premise that they are. Truth cannot contradict truth. God is not the author of error. Since it is a directly observed fact that the world has existed for substantially longer than just 6,000 years, the young earth creationism doctrine is an incorrect idea about the world. Thus, God cannot be the author of the erroneous idea that the world has not existed for more than about 6,000 years since in fact it has existed far longer than this. The young earth creationism doctrine is simply an incorrect interpretation that has been made by fallible human beings.

It's also true that Christians who deny objective facts about the world are being inconsistent with their own doctrine by being inconsistent with Christian moral standards in regard to practicing honesty and integrity in the context of respecting truth.

YEC Argument:

While the Bible is not a science "textbook" per se, it does discuss subjects very much related to science and philosophy. If we claim to believe in the Bible, then we should believe that what it says concerning things related to such subjects as science and philosophy (and all other subjects for that matter) are true.

Response:

We do not always understand what the Bible says. Our fallible human understanding of God's Word and God's World is quite often mistaken and deficient. What we are questioning is each other's fallible human understanding. Young earth creationists are fallible human beings, just like everyone else. Young earth creationists accept the fact that human interpretation of the Bible is fallible, and yet they frequently make rhetorical statements that imply that they believe that their (human) interpretation of the Bible is infallible. But the truth of their human fallibility means that young earth creationists must accept the possibility that it is the young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible that is mistaken, and they must accept the corresponding possibility that the earth and the universe really are quite old, just as the information that has been acquired through objective examination of the earth and the universe shows that it is. The Bible is made up of various kinds of literature, written by people in the languages of ancient cultures, sometimes even using literary references and types that we have extreme difficulty understanding in general let alone understanding in detail.

It is a fact that the Bible uses hyperbolic, metaphorical, and allegorical language. This is obviously nontechnical language. It is also true that even where the language of the biblical text is clearly intended literally, it is still nontechnical language, and can in many cases be interpreted in alternative ways depending on what the context, which isn't always clear, is supposed to be. Some YEC rhetoric commonly implies that anyone who thinks that the Bible might dare to use hyperbolic, metaphorical, or allegorical language can't possibly be interpreting the Bible correctly. This rhetoric is clearly false.

The biblical text certainly does state things that have implications with respect to what we might find upon careful, objective investigation of the physical world or with respect to philosophical ideas. However, it is because the Bible is not a science textbook and because it is not a philosophical treatise that it is frequently very problematic regarding what those implications actually are. Even among theologians, whose profession it is to study the Bible, there is a great deal of disagreement regarding proper biblical interpretation over a great many subjects — and this fact would remain true even if we were to restrict our view to theologians in the evangelical Christian community. So while we can derive certain implications about the physical world or philosophy or other areas, the fact remains that the Bible was not written to teach us astronomy, it was not written to teach us biology, and it was not written to teach us about geology. The Bible was written to teach us about God, and about our relationship to Him, and about our relationship to our fellow human beings. Our relationship to God today is based on Jesus Christ and what he did and does for us to bring us into proper relationship to God. This is what the Bible is about.

YEC Argument:

With our finite minds, we will never completely understand the depth of God's inspired Word, but any believer can understand the basic concepts that it teaches, especially if we are diligent to study it and pray that the Holy Spirit will grant us understanding. Why would God give us the revelation ("revealing") of His Word if we could not understand it? That would defeat the purpose. And there are some doctrines, such as the doctrine of Creation, that are laid out in Scripture plainly and clearly.

Response:

How we want things to be and how they actually are is sometimes very different. It is a fact that even among evangelical Christians, among Christians whose theology and hermeneutics is quite conservative, there in fact exists a great deal of disagreement over some of the basic concepts written about in the Bible. I'm not arguing a matter of logic or understanding here. This is simply a practical truth about conservative Christianity today. We do not have a complete and perfect understanding of the Bible. For example, there are a great many details about the writings of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation that we simply do not know or understand. Frequently, there is a great divide between 'possible to understand' and 'actually understood.' It used to be taught that the scriptural doctrine of geocentrism was "laid out in Scripture plainly and clearly" and that astronomers ("philosophers" in the religious terminology of that day) should not be denying the clear teaching of God's Word. Times have changed.

YEC Argument:

The only reason anyone would have to deny the clear teaching of scripture on young earth creationism is if they don't want to believe it for some reason or another (i.e., personal bias). Those who believe that the Earth is millions of years old believe this because they want to, not because of any objective evidence. Such evidence can be interpreted in different ways depending on the observer's bias (just like the Scriptures can be interpreted in different ways to depending on the preconceived ideas of the reader).

There can be no evidence to prove the age of the Earth because all the evidence we have is in the present and we can only make assumptions about what happened in the past unless we believe the testimony of the only Witness Who was there and knows what happened. As Bible believers, we should view the world around us from a scriptural perspective, not from a worldly perspective. Empirical science can only study the present, not the past. Factual information about the physical world has only to do with what can be observed in the present. It has nothing to do with theories of what has happened in the past. The age of the earth cannot be determined through objective examination because we can only examine it in the present, not in the past.

Response:

First, it happens to be the case that it is only among young earth creationists that you sometimes see the argument that we should disregard the objective evidence and rely solely on our human interpretation of the biblical text. Not all young earth creationists make this argument, but many do. What they are implying is that we must rely on their fallible human interpretations, and that even though the doctrine they have derived based on their interpretations has direct implications about the physical world that we should be able to objectively examine independently of human interpretation of the biblical text, according to some odd, unexplained fallible human reasoning of these fallible young earth creationists we are not supposed to actually carry out any manner of independent, objective examination of the physical world itself which the young earth creationism doctrine has direct implications about.

Second, there are in fact hundreds of examples where these implications of young earth creationism have been examined and have been determined to be incorrect. There is the example of young earth creationist ideas about moon dust. There is the example of YEC ideas about earth's magnetic decay. There is the example of YEC ideas about ocean salinity. There is the shrinking sun argument, the "light takes a shortcut through space" argument. The argument that the Lewis Overthrust shows no crushing of the traversing geological layers. And on and on the list goes. Every single one of these areas, when carefully examined, is found to contradict the young earth creationist portrayal and to in fact support the fact that the earth and the universe have existed for a very long time.

With science we are dealing with careful, objective investigation, with the emphasis on objective. That's the very point of scientific investigation.

Third, science is not a "worldly perspective," though I am aware of the fact that part of the young earth creationist practice is to incorrectly portray it this way. A fundamental aspect of science is careful, objective investigation and examination of the physical world. There is absolutely nothing wrong or sinful about this. This is an extension of the honesty and integrity involved with truth-seeking, an extension of common sense, and includes aspects of our God-given intelligence and our God-expected stewardship responsibilities. From the biblical perspective, "worldly" refers to the motivations of our sinful nature. Refusing to accept correction of an incorrect personal belief is an example of a behavior that arises from our sinful nature. To imply that scientific investigation is "worldly" is to misuse the biblical concept of "worldly."

Fourth, while in most situations there are plausible alternative ways of interpreting objective evidence, there are two other aspects of this to keep in mind. Some explanations are more plausible than others and at the same time some explanations are rendered completely implausible, impossible even, by the objective evidence. This is called 'falsification.' Also, there are cases where the objective evidence relevant to a specific idea is so extensive and so consistent, that that idea reaches the status of being the only possible explanation and thus becomes what we call a factual characteristic about the world, that we have learned through an extensive process of investigation and verification. The earth orbits the sun. The sun does not orbit the earth. The sun orbits the galactic core. The universe does not revolve about the earth. Short-period comets come from being perturbed out of their normal orbits in the Kuiper Belt region of the solar system.

Fifth, in regard specifically to the earth there are cases where the evidence that exists is quite conclusive, in that regardless of the assumptions that are made, the assumptions are made in an area we might call 'possibly correct assumption.' At the same time, there is another area we might call 'assumptions that are completely inconsistence with the objective evidence.' Let me clarify what I mean by this with the example of impact craters on the earth and the moon. While we may not know in detail the particular time that an impact crater occurred, we know, based on the physics of the sheer number of impact craters that exist (on the moon, as well as on the earth), that it is impossible for all of these impacts to have occurred within a very short time span of only the last 6,000 years, because of the fact that the total kinetic energy released by all of the impacts in such a short period of time would mean that the earth would have been made uninhabitable by the sheer number of impacts of such magnitude (and the moon would still be detectably hot today, when it is in fact a cold body).

Sixth, in regard specifically to the universe, due to the nature of astronomical observation, we do in fact right now in the present directly observe events that occurred in the distant past. The objective data about the physical world shows unequivocally that the world has existed for a far longer period of time than just 6,000 years. The objective data that shows that the world is ancient is definitive and extensive.

One specific example of this is the case of the supernova designated SN1987A. Astronomers have observed this explosion of a star that occurred approximately 168,000 years ago. This is a directly observed fact. This example alone proves that the universe has been in existence at least 160,000 years longer than just 6,000 years, thus definitively disproving the idea of a 6,000-year-old universe. Here are some internet references regarding SN1987A:

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/94/22.html http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/03.html http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/14.html http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/19.html http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/08/ http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/04/ http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/2000/11/ http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat048.html http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat048a.html http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat050.html http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat066.html http://www.creationism.cc/ancientproof/SN1987A.html http://singularity.astro.uiuc.edu/projects/mcnews/newsletter18.html http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/homework4/hwk4.html http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm

That the world has existed far longer than just 6,000 years is a directly observed objective fact about the world. Young earth creationists should not be saying that the idea of a distant past is only based on assumptions and extrapolations, because in the case of astronomy the distant past is a matter of direct observation and so when young earth creationists make such a statement as this they are absolutely wrong. Those young earth creationists who are genuinely honest about this matter need to cease making this obviously false claim.

YEC Argument:

The inspired Word of God is the only place where we can find absolute truth. We can only fully understand the world that God made if we understand what His Word says about that world. What we can know based on objective examination of the world is limited. If we first examine what God's Word says about the world and use what it says to develop a premise, then we can objectively examine the world and come to some definite conclusions based on that scriptural premise.

When a person makes claims about the physical world, then we should first check his claims against the Word of God. If what he says contradicts God's Word, we know it cannot be true. Checking what he says by objectively examining the world itself is secondary because God's Word is absolute, definite truth, whereas through our observations of the world we can only discover limited truth and make assumptions.

Our understanding is limited. So the only way we can determine whether what we believe concerning biblical doctrine is true is to compare it in context to the whole of scripture. This is a primary hermeneutical principle. In the same way, the only way to know for sure if what we believe about the world is true is to compare what we believe to the Bible.

A person should not decide that what he believes the Bible says is not true based solely on "independent investigation" of the world because only the Holy Scripture can be used as a measuring rod to determine definite truth.

Response:

If I go outside and look the sky, and the sky is blue, and I say the sky is blue, then I am correct. This is totally irrelevant to understanding anything the Bible says. If I want to know the mineral composition of a rock, I might use a hammer, and a microscope, and maybe even a chemical analysis of the rock, to find out what the composition is. The biblical text is irrelevant to my analysis and results. The objective data about the world is what it is. It is independent of the Bible, and can be and is examined independently of the biblical text. God's World is an independent creation from God's Word, and people learn many, many things about God's World regardless of anything they know about God's Word (and even if they are completely ignorant of God's Word). This is why it's called objective data, because it doesn't depend on any one person's fallible knowledge and personal biases.

The fundamental flaw with this kind of hermeneutic (method of biblical interpretation) that young earth creationists advocate (which, by the way, is an interpretive method that has been devised by fallible human beings) by this argument is that it completely ignores the fact that our human interpretation of God's Word is fallible. We know for a fact that we humans advocate ideas about God's Word all of the time that are incorrect. In the context of religion and science, the case of geocentrism is a significant historical example that proves that it is completely legitimate and correct to use the conclusive results of objective examination of the world to revise our biblical interpretations. If we happen to learn by independent investigation that a particular interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and if that independent conclusion can withstand serious and extensive scrutiny, we must accept the conclusion since that conclusion represents an aspect of truth, and then, since truth can't contradict truth, we must consider potential revisions to our biblical interpretations when appropriate.

Objective information about the physical world can be and is objectively examined independently of examining the biblical text. You can check on the validity of information about the physical world by careful, objective examination of the physical world. This is because truth cannot contradict truth and because truth is truth regardless of personal bias. Either the universe and the earth did not exist prior to 6,000 years ago, or they did. The objective information about the world will either be consistent with the idea that the universe and the earth did not exist before 6,000 years ago, or the objective information will be consistent with the idea that they have been in existence longer than this. Because truth can't contradict truth, objective examination of the world shows one or the other. It cannot show both, or neither.

God's Word and God's World are consistent, because truth cannot contradict truth and God is not the author of error. What this means is that if we have unequivocal objective data that shows that the universe and the earth are old (that they have been around substantially longer than 6,000 years), then the young earth interpretation of scripture must be wrong, because truth can't contradict truth.

God's World is also absolute. God's Word does not tell us everything. Where does the Bible tell us how to build houses, bridges, refrigerators, boats, or computers? Where does the Bible tell us how to perform open heart surgery? Where does the Bible tell us about the Han dynasty of Chinese history? Where does the Bible tell us about supernovae like SN1987A, or about galactic structure, or about Cepheid variable stars, or about the moons of Jupiter? In fact, the Bible tells us nothing of these things. We learn about these other factual characteristics about our world by careful objective investigation of the world itself. Even if we had perfect knowledge of the entire text of the Bible in its original languages (which is impossible), and even if we had perfect understanding of what was being expressed by this text (which is impossible), we still would know almost nothing about the physical world in general, because that is not what the Bible is about.

The truth is that the Bible is not a technical reference manual. The primary purpose of God's Word is to tell us what we need to know to get into proper relationship with God and with our fellow human beings. It is only by carefully examining God's World, not God's Word, that we can objectively learn anything about these other kinds of matters.

The Bible does not teach us that the earth orbits the sun. This fact about the physical world is known only by independent, objective examination of God's World. Thus, the statement that "the only way to know for sure if what we believe about the world is true is to compare what we believe to the Bible" is totally, and obviously, a false statement. Since it is a false statement, it cannot be a "primary hermeneutical principle." It is a false principle, and thus any hermeneutical method that employs it is an interpretive method that is based on a conceptual mistake.

Truth is truth, regardless of where you find it. God's World is what it is, and when you examine it and genuinely learn something about it, that is just as much truth as anything else. What you learn about the world may certainly be a more mundane aspect of truth than what you learn about the Word, but this doesn't mean that somehow it is 'less than true.'

YEC Argument:

We can be no more sure that our interpretation of the evidence gathered from independent research is true than we can be that our interpretation of Scripture is true! Is it right to refuse to change our fallible human interpretation of the physical evidence after we have honestly determined through a proper, thorough, exegetical study of scripture that God's Word says something contrary to what we thought was true (based on our fallible human interpretation of the evidence)?

Response:

The general principle is that we must be ready to change our fallible human interpretations of either the biblical text, or of the objective data of the physical world, or both, based on new information that we learn as we go through our lives and learn new things. This is the nature of our duty as Christians based on our responsibilities in regard to honesty and integrity.

If we possessed a nonconclusive interpretation about the physical world and we also possessed a conclusive interpretation of the biblical text, then it would be proper to modify our interpretation about the physical world (when they have implications relevant to each other). There is also an 'intermediate area' where our interpretations might conflict and where both our interpretation of the physical data is not definitive and our interpretation of the biblical text is not definitive.

However, with regard to the particular subject of young earth creationism, we are talking about a situation where the objective data about the physical world shows definitively that the world has existed for a far longer period of time than just 6,000 years. The objective data that shows that the world is ancient is extensive and unequivocal. One specific example of this that I've already mentioned is the case of SN1987A where we have observed the explosion of a star that occurred about 168,000 years ago. Because truth cannot contradict truth, and because we have learned that the antiquity of the earth is a factual aspect of the physical world, we know, by direct implication, that the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old and thus we know, in turn, that the young earth creationism interpretation must be an incorrect interpretation of the Bible.

YEC Argument:

The great distinction between conservative "fundamentalist" hermeneutics versus liberal interpretation of Scripture is that conservatives believe that God's Word is the ultimate source of absolute Truth, and thus we must study it to learn what truth is. Others, however, put more faith in their own understanding of the world than they put in God's Word!

Response:

This is an incorrect portrayal all the way around.

First of all, the "conservative" or "liberal" labeling is irrelevant to the genuine issues and only serves to engender bias. What we should care about is the truth.

Second, in fact, Benjamin B. Warfield, who is considered by conservative theologians to be the most significant contributor to our understanding today of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, accepted the fact that the earth is old. Charles Hodge, a conservative theologian and Warfield's mentor, accepted the fact that the earth is old. Charles Hodge's son, Archibald Alexander Hodge, also a well-known conservative theologian in the 19th century, accepted the fact of antiquity. The conservative Alexander Campbell accepted the fact of antiquity. James I. Packer, a conservative theologian who has written extensively about biblical inerrancy, accepts the fact of antiquity. Francis Schaeffer, another well-known evangelical who wrote on theology, accepted the fact of antiquity. Davis A. Young, who is an evangelical Christian (and whose father was the renowned conservative Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young), was a young earth creationist who accepted the fact of antiquity after his extensive study of the objective data. (Young now teaches geology at Calvin Christian College.) The well-known conservative theologian James Orr, who was one of the primary authors of The Fundamentals (which is where the term "fundamentalist" derives from) wrote in his chapter in volume 1 on "Science and Christian Faith":

If the intention of the first chapter of Genesis was really to give us the "date" of the creation of the earth and heavens, the objection would be unanswerable. But things, as in the case of astronomy, are now better understood, and few are disquieted in reading their Bibles because it is made certain that the world is immensely older than the 6,000 years which the older chronology gave it. Geology is felt only to have expanded our ideas of the vastness and marvel of the Creator's operations through the aeons of time during which the world, with its teeming populations of fishes, birds, reptiles, mammals, was preparing for man's abode — when the mountains were being upheaved, the valleys being scooped out, and veins of precious metals being inlaid into the crust of the earth.
[ http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/chapter18/orr_3.html ]

Conservative theologians today such as Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (a Hebrew scholar), John T. Willis (another Hebrew scholar), Bruce K. Waltke, John H. Sailhamer, Henri Blocher, Mark D. Futato, Meredith G. Kline, John H. Stek, and Mark Ross, among many others, accept the fact that the earth is ancient.

Third, those Christians who accept the fact of earth's antiquity do not put more faith in their own understanding of the world than they put in God's Word. This is totally incorrect. We do not have faith in fallible human understanding at all. We do not accept that the earth is old because we have faith in human understanding. We accept that the earth is old because the objective data that has been acquired about the world shows us that antiquity is a factual characteristic of the world, and we accept this fact because once we have learned about the relevant data that shows antiquity we are compelled to accept it because of our Christian duty to accept the truth no matter how we feel about it.

YEC Argument:

Here are some basic principles of hermeneutics:

"Exegesis" is when the reader attempts to derive his understanding from the text. (The prefix "ex" means "out of" or "from").

"Eisegesis" is personal interpretation of a text based on the reader's own ideas which are read into the text.

Exegesis is the proper application of hermeneutical principles.

Response:

Maybe, maybe not. While I agree with you that exegesis is in general preferable to eisegesis, it is a matter of fact that there are cases where exegesis is only equivocal or ambiguous due to the simple fact that exegesis alone simply cannot acquire enough relevant information to be definitive. (It is also possible for exegetical interpretation can arrive at conclusions which are thought to be definitive when in fact they are not. But such realization that these interpretation are actually wrong might come after false "unequivocal doctrine" has been taught for centuries.)

External information (such as archaeological information) can be and has been relevant for helping to determine the proper interpretation of parts of scripture. It is also true that there are parts of scripture which we do not clearly understand today, and there are parts of scripture which were understood incorrectly in the past but which we understand (interpret) differently today based not solely on textual considerations but also on considerations of relevant external information.

Consider the historical example of geocentrism, which demonstrates the failure of exegesis to be conclusive and correct. The simplest interpretation of the biblical texts that touch on astronomy, for example, tell us that the earth does not move and that the sun goes around the earth. If I didn't have any independent, objective information about the physical world around me, and just didn't have any good reason to think any differently, then I would be a geocentrist, based on the simplest interpretation of the biblical text. However, based on information that is completely external to the biblical text, I know that it is a fact of the physical world that the sun does not orbit the earth, but that the earth orbits the sun. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to indicate that this is so. This is known only through scientific examination of the world. And it is only due to such realization, based on science, that we know that even the most complete, exhaustive exegetical interpretation solely of the biblical texts alone on this issue do in fact yield an incorrect interpretation.

Young earth creationism happens to be another example of this same kind of problem.

In addition to this, there are many examples where young earth creationists use eisegesis with the biblical text on a routine basis. The apparent age doctrine is one example of this.

YEC Argument:

The biblical doctrine of Creation relates directly to the biblical doctrine of salvation. The biblical doctrine of creation teaches that God created man perfect, without sin. Man chose to disobey God and thus brought sin into the world and sin brought death. Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

So to deny the biblical account of creation undermines the doctrine of sin and takes away the reason for Christ's death (to pay for man's sin.) Also, if what the Bible says concerning creation is not meant to be taken literally then why should we take the gospel literally? Maybe it's all just an allegory! (This is not to say that those who don't believe in the biblical doctrine of creation cannot be saved; just that their faith is the wrong thing and their understanding of the Bible is wrong.)

Now theologians and scholars disagree as to whether this Messianic Gospel is true, but so what? We cannot understand the message of the New Covenant without understanding the message of the Torah concerning creation and the fall of man.

Response:

"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them. "Will they not return to Egypt and will not Assyria rule over them because they refuse to repent?
(Hosea 11:1-5)

Hosea 11:1 obviously refers directly to the Israelite's exodus from Egypt. Jeremiah 31:15 obviously refers directly to a time of captivity of the Israelites. Yet Matthew, in chapter 2, uses these passages of scripture in an allegorical fashion in reference to events in the life of Jesus when he was a child. So according to your fallible human opinion (like you, I suppose I could say 'according to your wrong faith') apparently we are supposed to throw the book of Matthew out of the Bible because Matthew dares to use scripture in an allegorical fashion rather than taking literally the Old Testament scriptures that he used.

The Bible uses a variety of literature types, including allegory, metaphorical language, hyperbole, poetry, apocalyptic literature, and parable. Even the text of the Gospels, which is generally historical in character (see Luke, for instance, who explicitly informs us that he is writing an historical account), contains other types of literature within it. The Bible must be taken in perspective, in context, both in specific context and in broad context. The creation account in Genesis is a different kind of literature from the literature used in the Gospels, therefore the intended analogy between Genesis and the Gospel in terms of 'literal or not literal' is an illegitimate analogy.

Consider the water below the firmament and the water above the firmament. The construction of the language shows that it is incorrect to interpret it as some sort of technical, scientific description. It is really a type of metaphorical description.

Here is the text:

Genesis 1:6-10, 14-19 And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.      . . . And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Verse 7 states that "God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." Verse 17 states that God set the sun, moon, and stars "in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." There is no plausible interpretation of this picture as some kind of scientific, technical description of ocean, sky, clouds, and sun, moon, and stars. Indeed, it is in these passages that we can see where the medieval interpreters got their celestial sphere stuff (which we know is entirely incorrect) by interpreting this as being a technically literal description of the cosmos, which is not what it is at all. Such an interpretation is completely implausible. The metaphor is God constructing the earth and the heavens, in metaphorical language similar to that used elsewhere in the Bible (see, for example, Amos 9:6, Job 22:14, Job 26:11, Job 37:9-18, Psalm 104:2-3).

It is also wrong to imply that to believe that the doctrine of young earth creationism is incorrect is to "deny the biblical account of creation." This claim is false and young earth creationists need to learn how to restrain themselves from so often expressing this false implication, as they so frequently do. Those who think (know) that the young earth creationism doctrine is wrong do not deny the biblical account of creation. What they deny is that the young earth creationist interpretation of the account is correct. If YEC understanding of the Bible is perfect, and YECs happen to be personally inspired by God to understand the biblical text without error, then I guess they will have to simply forgive those who deny young earth creationism for their ignorance. But, in fact, since young earth creationists are fallible human beings and since they are not inspired directly by God, then they desperately need to realize that simply because some Christians disagree with their personal opinion about this fallible human interpretation of the Bible this does not at all imply that "their faith is the wrong thing" or that "their understanding of the Bible is wrong." Moreover, since we know for a fact that the world has existed far longer than just 6,000 years, and since truth cannot contradict truth, we know that it is the young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible that is wrong. Christians who disagree with young earth creationism do not disagree with the Bible.

Young earth creationists should heed the advice of one of their fellow young earth creationists, Norman Geisler (from the recent book The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation):

...the creation-day debate is not over the inspiration of the Bible, but over its interpretation...no one holding any of the views should be charged with unorthodoxy for the position he espouses....

The young earth creationist interpretation greatly overextends itself in regard to interpretation of the biblical text. Consider this argument: "We cannot understand the message of the New Covenant without understanding the message of the Torah concerning creation and the fall of man." This statement is not made anywhere in God's Word. Creationists who make this argument are doing nothing more than stating their own fallible human opinion rather than reciting the Word of God. This opinion is nothing more than a fallible interpretation based on the fallible human doctrine of young earth creationism. What does the Bible itself say on this matter?

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures....
(1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

To add to scripture the idea that the young earth creationism creed is an important component of the gospel is to add to scripture what simply is not there. Paul and other apostles a number of times warn us not to go beyond scripture by adding our human ideas to it and claiming that these ideas are the same thing as scripture.

It is not legitimate to question people's faith based on their position on this subject. We are saved by the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 1 Tim. 3:16), and we demonstrate the genuineness of our faith by our deeds and how we treat our neighbors (Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-37; Gal. 5:6-26; Titus 2:1-14; James 1:25-2:26; 1 Tim. 2:10, 5:4). We are not saved by what we believe about the ages of the universe and the earth, and what we believe in regard to this particular subject is simply not relevant to our salvation in Christ.