A Young Earth Friendly Old Earth Creationism

[chadMiddleMan]

Hi all!

A decade ago I was a hard core Young Earth Creationist (YEC). I taught it with zeal at youth group services, evangelism classes, and apologetics seminars. I thought that the main two views of Genesis 1 were the Biblical view (literal), and the non-Biblical view (non-literal). Little did I know, there were around 10 different views on Genesis 1, ranging from Biblical, to semi-Biblical, to “that’s a real stretch”. So a few years ago I took it upon myself to study those views and see if any of them made compelling points. I took my time and tried to remain objective, eating the hay and spitting out the sticks. Although there are certain tenets in YEC that I definitely still hold to, this long journey has led me to embrace some tenets of old earth creationism, though not all. As usual, I landed somewhere in the middle ground! I’ll call it a Young Earth Friendly Old Earth Creationism. I call it Young Earth Friendly because it retains a non-negotiable principle of Young Earth Creationism: A literal interpretation of the 24 hour days. Let me share the ten things I learned about the creation account ...

As a caution: This is not a science based approach, but a hermeneutical based approach ...

A Young Earth Friendly Old Earth Creationism

 

[Charlie24]

Hi all!

A decade ago I was a hard core Young Earth Creationist (YEC). I taught it with zeal at youth group services, evangelism classes, and apologetics seminars. I thought that the main two views of Genesis 1 were the Biblical view (literal), and the non-Biblical view (non-literal). Little did I know, there were around 10 different views on Genesis 1, ranging from Biblical, to semi-Biblical, to “that’s a real stretch”. So a few years ago I took it upon myself to study those views and see if any of them made compelling points. I took my time and tried to remain objective, eating the hay and spitting out the sticks. Although there are certain tenets in YEC that I definitely still hold to, this long journey has led me to embrace some tenets of old earth creationism, though not all. As usual, I landed somewhere in the middle ground! I’ll call it a Young Earth Friendly Old Earth Creationism. I call it Young Earth Friendly because it retains a non-negotiable principle of Young Earth Creationism: A literal interpretation of the 24 hour days. Let me share the ten things I learned about the creation account ...

As a caution: This is not a science based approach, but a hermeneutical based approach ...

A Young Earth Friendly Old Earth Creationism

I think your 10 points are reasonable. I've heard several accounts of this and the theory I find the most likely is that Gen. 1:1 is the original creation of the universe some millions of years ago in the dateless past.

Between 1:1 and 1:2 something happened that seriously damaged creation. God didn't originally create the universe "without form and void."

I believe that happening was the revolt of Satan against God.

From 1:3 on I think is God's remake of the universe some 6000 years ago. This remake was in preparation for the creation of man that took place during this time.

 

[Jamsie]

Hi all!

A decade ago I was a hard core Young Earth Creationist (YEC). I taught it with zeal at youth group services, evangelism classes, and apologetics seminars. I thought that the main two views of Genesis 1 were the Biblical view (literal), and the non-Biblical view (non-literal). Little did I know, there were around 10 different views on Genesis 1, ranging from Biblical, to semi-Biblical, to “that’s a real stretch”. So a few years ago I took it upon myself to study those views and see if any of them made compelling points. I took my time and tried to remain objective, eating the hay and spitting out the sticks. Although there are certain tenets in YEC that I definitely still hold to, this long journey has led me to embrace some tenets of old earth creationism, though not all. As usual, I landed somewhere in the middle ground! I’ll call it a Young Earth Friendly Old Earth Creationism. I call it Young Earth Friendly because it retains a non-negotiable principle of Young Earth Creationism: A literal interpretation of the 24 hour days. Let me share the ten things I learned about the creation account ...

As a caution: This is not a science based approach, but a hermeneutical based approach ...

A Young Earth Friendly Old Earth Creationism

Excellent...As you, I undertook a fairly intensive study of Genesis 1-2 quite a few years back. However, when I had a computer crash my notes and such were not to be recovered. I wrote this recently: "There is only one verse in the Genesis 1 narrative that speaks to immediacy... Verse 3, "And God said, "Let there be light and there was light". Subsequent to verse 3 all fiats invoke mediate creation as a plain reading demonstrates the commands are directed at pre-existing matter- water/land. As an example, if immediacy was to be set forth why not... "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures and there was living creatures"? So in reading Genesis 1 we believe that God's commands/fiats were not only the sole agent but also all sufficient to accomplish his purpose. What follows the commands - "God made living creatures" (etc.) must be parenthetical or explanatory because we know that his command was all sufficient. Again, each day's command thus are structured that so that the term "day" represents and relates to the command...not to any timeframe for that command to be completed. Just as the universe continues to expand and life on earth is dynamic not static so his commanded processes continue.........…"

I have pieced together some of my written notes and was able to recover some "email" files which outlined what is very much similar to your view. I have not been able to find one of the main sources which I believe was found in F Hugh Capron's 1902 "Conflict of Truth".(I believe a response to Spencer)

Anyway, Thank you very much for your considered thoughts.....

 

[chadMiddleMan]

Excellent...As you, I undertook a fairly intensive study of Genesis 1-2 quite a few years back. However, when I had a computer crash my notes and such were not to be recovered. I wrote this recently: "There is only one verse in the Genesis 1 narrative that speaks to immediacy... Verse 3, "And God said, "Let there be light and there was light". Subsequent to verse 3 all fiats invoke mediate creation as a plain reading demonstrates the commands are directed at pre-existing matter- water/land. As an example, if immediacy was to be set forth why not... "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures and there was living creatures"? So in reading Genesis 1 we believe that God's commands/fiats were not only the sole agent but also all sufficient to accomplish his purpose. What follows the commands - "God made living creatures" (etc.) must be parenthetical or explanatory because we know that his command was all sufficient. Again, each day's command thus are structured that so that the term "day" represents and relates to the command...not to any timeframe for that command to be completed. Just as the universe continues to expand and life on earth is dynamic not static so his commanded processes continue.........…"

I have pieced together some of my written notes and was able to recover some "email" files which outlined what is very much similar to your view. I have not been able to find one of the main sources which I believe was found in F Hugh Capron's 1902 "Conflict of Truth".(I believe a response to Spencer)

Anyway, Thank you very much for your considered thoughts.....

Thanks for the positive feedback. Wow, you're quoted text is very similar to the content in my point #8. It's great to see that other people are catching those textual nuances. Let's stay in contact and share information.

Chad

 

[Jamsie]

Hi all!

A decade ago I was a hard core Young Earth Creationist (YEC). I taught it with zeal at youth group services, evangelism classes, and apologetics seminars. I thought that the main two views of Genesis 1 were the Biblical view (literal), and the non-Biblical view (non-literal).

If this is of interest somewhere within this online PDF of Capron's "Conflict of Truth" is found his thoughts on Genesis. I believe somewhere in the pages around chapter X to XII are some salient points on his thoughts...I haven't really intensively revisited or sought to reclaim my complete notes on this.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088677092&view=1up&seq=10

 

[Jamsie]

Thanks for the positive feedback. Wow, you're quoted text is very similar to the content in my point #8. It's great to see that other people are catching those textual nuances. Let's stay in contact and share information.
Chad

Again, though occasionally I have posted thoughts on the subject of creation - I have not sought to rebuild my more complete notes on the subject. I came across a rather substantive article on Capron years ago, but it seems no longer available. (Perhaps I will at some point seek to find it again) This had considerable notes supporting his views from scientists of various disciplines...though these same scientists were not aware of Capron's arguments. Blessings.....

 

[chadMiddleMan]

I think your 10 points are reasonable. I've heard several accounts of this and the theory I find the most likely is that Gen. 1:1 is the original creation of the universe some millions of years ago in the dateless past.

Between 1:1 and 1:2 something happened that seriously damaged creation. God didn't originally create the universe "without form and void."

I believe that happening was the revolt of Satan against God.

From 1:3 on I think is God's remake of the universe some 6000 years ago. This remake was in preparation for the creation of man that took place during this time.

@Charlie24 , I held to your view (called the "Gap Theory") for a while. I can see some of the reasons why folks like it. Robert Saucy, a modern advocate, has some succinct reasons here: The So-Called Gap Theory

However, I believe that Genesis 1 is a plain and simple creation account. Gen 1:1 and 2:1 form a creation sandwich, from the beginning of creation, when the "heavens and earth" are created, to the finishing of creation, when "all the host of them" are complete. The idea of ruin/reconstruction simply because of the phrase tohu wa bohu in 1:2 is extremely speculative, especially when the creation events are elsewhere assumed to be creation events, not "reconstruction" events.

Though the tohu wa bohu state can be a result of judgment (Jer 4:23), such a notion can only be determined by context. The context in the beginning of Genesis is an "unfinished" state, not a wicked state. Likewise it was "not good" that Adam didn't have a helper before Eve was created. Does that mean it was evil? No, just not suitable for mankind yet. So the creation started off unfinished and unsuited for mankind. But God declared each step "good"; i.e. better than each preceding state... until the final day where it was declared "very good".

Thanks for the feedback on my post!

 

[Paul James]

@Charlie24 , I held to your view (called the "Gap Theory") for a while. I can see some of the reasons why folks like it. Robert Saucy, a modern advocate, has some succinct reasons here: The So-Called Gap Theory

However, I believe that Genesis 1 is a plain and simple creation account. Gen 1:1 and 2:1 form a creation sandwich, from the beginning of creation, when the "heavens and earth" are created, to the finishing of creation, when "all the host of them" are complete. The idea of ruin/reconstruction simply because of the phrase tohu wa bohu in 1:2 is extremely speculative, especially when the creation events are elsewhere assumed to be creation events, not "reconstruction" events.

Though the tohu wa bohu state can be a result of judgment (Jer 4:23), such a notion can only be determined by context. The context in the beginning of Genesis is an "unfinished" state, not a wicked state. Likewise it was "not good" that Adam didn't have a helper before Eve was created. Does that mean it was evil? No, just not suitable for mankind yet. So the creation started off unfinished and unsuited for mankind. But God declared each step "good"; i.e. better than each preceding state... until the final day where it was declared "very good".

Thanks for the feedback on my post!

In the context of the God of the Bible is infinite, all powerful, all knowing, and outside of time, there is no problem accepting that God could have created the whole lot in an instant of time. So the question is, "Why did He take so long?" That might be a good question to answer at some stage.

The Genesis record says that the earth was created, surrounded by water, before anything else in the universe was created. This is opposite to evolution which states that the cosmos was created first and then the earth. Also, the earth did not evolve from a ball of molten rock. It was cool and surrounded by water, formless and void - and was created in an instant of time. It was actually created before time was created, so it is irrelevant about how long the earth existed before God said, "Let there be light", because there was no time to be measured. So the earth, at first was totally alone in the emptiness of eternal nothing.

As soon as God said, "Let there be light" (which He created before the sun) the earth was set in rotation, and the days and nights were formed through God's direct light source shining on the rotating planet. The dry land plus the plants were created on the third day - before the sun was created. Time was created as soon as the earth started revolving - one full rotation every 24 hours - 12 hours day, 12 hours night.

The sun and moon were created on the fourth day, and became the new light source to light up the earth, and the earth started orbiting around the sun. The stars were created on the same day, and the light from them was beamed through space in an instant to shine on the earth immediately, instead of billions of years later.

Just a note about time - it may only exist here on earth, and once we get away from earth, time becomes meaningless because it depends on the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun. On any other planet in the solar system, a day may be shorter or longer, and a year for Mercury and Venus would be much shorter, and a year for the other planets would be much longer. Once out in interstellar space, time becomes meaningless and doesn't functionally exist.

On day 5, all living creatures in the sea and on land were created. And on day 6 man was created. The Bible doesn't say that the woman was actually created on day 6. Then God rested on the 7th day. After that 24 hour day, God no longer rested but was back at work maintaining the universe. The Bible says that God rested, not is resting.

So, why did God take 6 days to create everything and rested on the 7th? He was setting up the structure of our 6 working days, and 1 day of rest, which is our seven day week.

So, this is how the Bible describes our all-powerful, infinite God created the universe and everything in it. It does intrigue me how that finite man who is like a grasshopper in the sight of our infinite, all powerful God, can tell Him how He created the universe. It would be like a talking house fly telling another house fly how I built my house!