Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
I'm very intrigued by historical creationism, a way of interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis found in the book Genesis Unbound by John Sailhamer, based on an understanding of the original Hebrew.

Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account by John H. Sailhamer

Basically, historical creationism teaches that the six days of Genesis refer specifically to the preparation of Eden and the creation of Adam and Eve, rather than the creation of the rest of the universe, which happened in the indefinite past.

Historical creationism teaches that Adam was created out of the dust of the ground, and that the Biblical genealogies are correct that humanity is about 10,000 years old, but not that creation itself is 10,000 years old.

Historical creationism maintains that Genesis 1:1 is the account of the creation of the universe. This creation took place “in the beginning”—in an unspecified period of time that may have lasted a very long time and may have been a very long time ago. The Genesis account simply does not give us any time frame for when the physical universe was created. It could well have been created long ago (even millions or billions of years in the past), or it may have been created very slowly over time. Therefore, the historical creationist interpretation of the Genesis account does not require a “young-earth” view.

When we pick up the story in Genesis 1:2, the earth is unformed and unfilled. Prior to modern science, there would have been little or no understanding of the concept of Earth as a planet. Thus, according to historical creationism, the word earth would have been understood as a specific area of land, not “Planet Earth.” Genesis 1:2—2:24 recounts the preparation of a specific area of habitat for mankind—the Garden of Eden—which took place over a literal six days.

The relationship of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2ff can be stated in the following paraphrase: “In the beginning, God created the universe. After He did this, He turned His attention to a specific area for man to live in. It was dark, so He said, ‘Let there be light.’” The words formless and void in Genesis 1:2 (KJV) can refer to a wasteland or wilderness that is unable to sustain life. (The term translated “formless” is also used in Deuteronomy 32:10 to refer to the wilderness at the time of Israel’s wanderings. Had it not been for God’s special provision, the people could not have survived their time there.) So, according to historical creationism, rather than Genesis 1:2 referring to the whole earth as a formless mass, it refers only to a specific section of wasteland that God had chosen for man to live in. (The whole planet may have been a barren waste, but that is outside the scope of the text.)

So, God spent a week of literal, 24-hour days to get the Garden of Eden ready for man. He first commanded the sun to rise: “Let there be light.” On Day 4, God did not bring into existence the sun and moon (they had already been created in Genesis 1:1); rather, He declared their purpose. Instead of “let there be lights in the vault of the sky,” historical creationists would argue that the best translation of Genesis 1:14 would be something like this: “Let the lights in the vault of the sky be signs.” The lights had existed since Day 1 and were already providing light, but, on Day 4, God proclaimed their significance—just as the rainbow may have existed before Noah’s time, but after the flood God gave it special significance. In Genesis 1:14 God revealed that the purpose of the heavenly bodies is to serve mankind.
What is historical creationism? | GotQuestions.org


Historical creationism asserts that God created the universe, which lasted for an indeterminate amount of time, prior to God preparing the land for habitation in six days.[1] Historical creationism appears to be the most appropriate interpretation of the Creation account for three reasons. First, John Sailhamer explains that a proper interpretation of the word reshit, which is the Hebrew word for “beginning,” supports historical creationism.[2] In the Bible, the term reshit “always refers to an extended, yet indeterminate duration of time – not a specific moment…which precedes an extended series of time periods.”[3] In other words, the phrase in Genesis 1:1, “in the beginning,” may represent billions of years of the universe’s existence prior to the six days of activity in Genesis 1:2-31, which aligns with current scientific data.[4] Second, historical creationism supports God’s ex nihilo creation, meaning that God created “without the use of preexisting materials.”[5] Third, historical creationism views Genesis 1 and 2 as a literal explanation of God’s creative work, as opposed to interpreting the Creation account as myth or metaphor.[6] Finally, historical creationism overcomes a number of problems facing other Creation theories, including the lack of biblical support for the gap theory and theistic evolution; the absence of literal interpretation of the literary framework view and day-age view; and lack of scientific support by young-earth creationism.[7]
Mark Driscoll’s Creation Debate - Spiritual Discipleship
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: ChetSinger

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,314
10,596
Georgia
✟910,177.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I'm very intrigued by historical creationism, a way of interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis found in the book Genesis Unbound by Joel Sailhamer, based on an understanding of the original Hebrew.

Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account by John H. Sailhamer

Basically, historical creationism teaches that the six days of Genesis refer specifically to the preparation of Eden and the creation of Adam and Eve, rather than the creation of the rest of the universe, which happened in the indefinite past.

Historical creationism teaches that Adam was created out of the dust of the ground, and that the Biblical genealogies are correct that humanity is about 10,000 years old, but not that creation itself is 10,000 years old.

Yeah that is pretty much my view as well
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,124
6,332
✟275,076.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Humanity is clearly older than 10,000 years old though.

What are known as 'behaviourally modern' humans have been around for at least 40,000 years, and probably more like 50,000 to 60,000 years.

'Anatomically modern' humans are somewhere around 250,000 to 300,000 years old.

Humans have been doing identifiably human things - domesticating animals and plants, making tools, building homes and religious sites, living in permanent settlements, going to war with neighbours, burying our dead - for at least 15,000 years.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
Humanity is clearly older than 10,000 years old though.

What are known as 'behaviourally modern' humans have been around for at least 40,000 years, and probably more like 50,000 to 60,000 years.

'Anatomically modern' humans are somewhere around 250,000 to 300,000 years old.

Humans have been doing identifiably human things - domesticating animals and plants, making tools, building homes and religious sites, living in permanent settlements, going to war with neighbours, burying our dead - for at least 15,000 years.

I think there can be some gaps in the genealogies of Genesis, but I don't think we can say with certainty that humanity is as old as what you are saying.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,060
51,500
Guam
✟4,907,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Basically, historical creationism teaches that the six days of Genesis refer specifically to the preparation of Eden and the creation of Adam and Eve, rather than the creation of the rest of the universe, which happened in the indefinite past.
Isn't this just the Gap Theory with a new name?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeyondET
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,060
51,500
Guam
✟4,907,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, because gap theory says that the creation was destroyed and then re-created.
From that Got Questions site:
Historical creationism should also challenge all believers to examine their understanding of the creation account, as well as any other passage of Scripture. It is important that our view is not overly influenced by English translations, traditions, or modern scientific concerns—either in capitulation or opposition to them.
This raises red flags.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
From that Got Questions site:This raises red flags.

What red flags? It's saying we should do our best to understand the original Hebrew, rather than reading our own theories into it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ChetSinger
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,060
51,500
Guam
✟4,907,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What red flags? It's saying we should do our best to understand the original Hebrew, rather than reading our own theories into it.
This is why I'm a KJVO.

When people have to resort to going to Hebrew or Greek to make their points, the
King James' "gotcha trap" springs and the conversation is over.

The King James Bible is truly a Force to be reckoned with.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
This is why I'm a KJVO.

When people have to resort to going to Hebrew or Greek to make their points, the
King James' "gotcha trap" springs and the conversation is over.

The King James Bible is truly a Force to be reckoned with.

What are you talking about? What makes the King James Bible superior to reading the original Hebrew?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
Humanity is clearly older than 10,000 years old though.

What are known as 'behaviourally modern' humans have been around for at least 40,000 years, and probably more like 50,000 to 60,000 years.

'Anatomically modern' humans are somewhere around 250,000 to 300,000 years old.

Humans have been doing identifiably human things - domesticating animals and plants, making tools, building homes and religious sites, living in permanent settlements, going to war with neighbours, burying our dead - for at least 15,000 years.

I don't want to get into a lenghty debate with atheists about evolution, especially since atheism requires evolution. But let me say this: All of the fossils which are claimed to be evidence for human evolution can be interpreted as either fully ape or fully human.

The brain size of homo erectus, for example, is within the range of modern human variation. Homo erectus might be just an extinct race of humans, rather than a species distinct from our own. You can't actually prove otherwise, especially if homo erectus was capable of interbreeding with modern humans.

You also can't prove that australopithecines were anything more than an ancient species of ape that may or may not have walked upright.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,060
51,500
Guam
✟4,907,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What are you talking about? What makes the King James Bible superior to reading the original Hebrew?
God's intentions (for us to have His final Translation in [Jacobean] English).

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


Translation Sequence:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,060
51,500
Guam
✟4,907,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't want to get into a lenghty debate with atheists about evolution, especially since atheism requires evolution. But let me say this: All of the fossils which are claimed to be evidence for human evolution can be interpreted as either fully ape or fully human.
Absolutely. :oldthumbsup:
Humble_Disciple said:
The brain size of homo erectus, for example, is within the range of modern human variation. Homo erectus might be just an extinct race of humans, rather than a species distinct from our own. You can't actually prove otherwise, especially if homo erectus was capable of interbreeding with modern humans.
Yes indeed. :oldthumbsup:

God warned His people that if they sinned against Him ...

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

David was struck by one of those plagues, and it was a bone-altering plague.

Psalm 38:1 O LORD, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.
2 For thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore.
3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.

4 For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me.
5 My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness.
6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.

7 For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh.
8 I am feeble and sore broken: I have roared by reason of the disquietness of my heart.
9 Lord, all my desire is before thee; and my groaning is not hid from thee.
10 My heart panteth, my strength faileth me: as for the light of mine eyes, it also is gone from me.
11 My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore; and my kinsmen stand afar off.

Humble_Disciple said:
You also can't prove that australopithecines were anything more than an ancient species of ape that may or may not have walked upright.
Yup. :oldthumbsup:

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice evolution is referred to as an "invention," and not a "discovery"?
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
It's also worth noting that Adam is mentioned as a historical person throughout the New Testament. Luke's genealogy of Jesus begins with Adam, and the entrance of sin into the world is blamed on Adam. Jesus' is even referred to as the second Adam, for reversing the consequences of Adam's disobedience.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: adderbolt
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't want to get into a lenghty debate with atheists about evolution, especially since atheism requires evolution. But let me say this: All of the fossils which are claimed to be evidence for human evolution can be interpreted as either fully ape or fully human.

The brain size of homo erectus, for example, is within the range of modern human variation. Homo erectus might be just an extinct race of humans, rather than a species distinct from our own. You can't actually prove otherwise, especially if homo erectus was capable of interbreeding with modern humans.

You also can't prove that australopithecines were anything more than an ancient species of ape that may or may not have walked upright.
Humans are apes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,124
6,332
✟275,076.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I think there can be some gaps in the genealogies of Genesis, but I don't think we can say with certainty that humanity is as old as what you are saying.

No, we can. It's basic palaeontology.

I don't want to get into a lenghty debate with atheists about evolution, especially since atheism requires evolution.

But, atheism DOESN’T require evolution. All atheism requires is an absence of belief in deities. You can reject evolution and still be an atheist.

Nothing I wrote earlier in this thread requires any acceptance of evolutionary biology. All it requires is an understanding that the physical evidence shows that humans have been doing human things - art, music, making homes, making clothes, making jewellery, fishing, hunting with implements, conducting rituals - for in excess of 40,00 years. And that things that look identical to humans have been around for a minimum of 200,000 years.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,716
3,230
39
Hong Kong
✟150,411.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't want to get into a lenghty debate with atheists about evolution, especially since atheism requires evolution. But let me say this: All of the fossils which are claimed to be evidence for human evolution can be interpreted as either fully ape or fully human.

The brain size of homo erectus, for example, is within the range of modern human variation. Homo erectus might be just an extinct race of humans, rather than a species distinct from our own. You can't actually prove otherwise, especially if homo erectus was capable of interbreeding with modern humans.

You also can't prove that australopithecines were anything more than an ancient species of ape that may or may not have walked upright.

Instead of thinking aboutva "lengthy debate", ( at the end of
which everything is the same) why not consider, for just a
moment, that the are people here much better informed than
you, and, instead of trying to argue with mistaken ideas, you
take advantage of an opportunity to learn new and interesting things?

For example- Australopithicus is far from the only
humanoid, science does not "prove" things, and,
they, like the rest of us are apes, so hard to prove
they weren't.

As for bipedal walking, actually that is easy to
demonstrate.

Any beliefs based on scanty and sometimes faulty info could
stand a touch up, don't you think so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
One of the most interesting evidences for design in the universe is the golden ratio, which has even been discovered at the subatomic level:

Johannes Kepler wrote that "the image of man and woman stems from the divine proportion. In my opinion, the propagation of plants and the progenitive acts of animals are in the same ratio".[67]

The psychologist Adolf Zeising noted that the golden ratio appeared in phyllotaxis and argued from these patterns in nature that the golden ratio was a universal law.[68][69] Zeising wrote in 1854 of a universal orthogenetic law of "striving for beauty and completeness in the realms of both nature and art".[70]

In 2010, the journal Science reported that the golden ratio is present at the atomic scale in the magnetic resonance of spins in cobalt niobate crystals.[71]
Golden ratio - Wikipedia

Golden ratio discovered in a quantum world
Hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid state matter
Golden ratio discovered in a quantum world

We can also go into detail about the structure of DNA and the unlikelihood that it arose by chance or the apparent fine-tuning of the universe to make carbon life-forms possible. But the problem with this is that no amount of evidence for design will ever convince someone who is philosophically committed to believe otherwise.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ChetSinger
Upvote 0