Old Earth Creation

[ps139]

Hi there ps139,

OEC's generally take a literal interpretation of genesis 1 and 2. However, they read the translation and meaning of the six "days" of creation as six long periods of time. They generally believe God progressively created plants, animals and humans through these periods - generally in the order they are found in the fossil record. OEC's generally believe God created out of nothing.

Theistic evolutionists on the other hand, believe that God "created" through evolution.

Personally I am an OEC who is open to theistic evolution. I feel "creation out of nothing" is the most logical interpretation of Genesis - but I do not discount evolution on this basis.

Thanks for the response, United. Question about "creation out of nothing." Does this mean, that, lets say when God created the fox, he did not use a sort of "pre-cursor" fox to create from, but created the fox out of nothing?
If so then I think I understand the difference. And that TEs would believe that God created out of nothing when he first created life, then created new life forms from that already existing life? Something like that?

 

[United]

Thanks for the response, United. Question about "creation out of nothing." Does this mean, that, lets say when God created the fox, he did not use a sort of "pre-cursor" fox to create from, but created the fox out of nothing?
If so then I think I understand the difference. And that TEs would believe that God created out of nothing when he first created life, then created new life forms from that already existing life? Something like that?

Hi ps139,

Your description is correct - but it is worth noting that there are many different variations within these groups (particularly theistic evolution).

For example, some TE's believe God "created new life forms from that already existing life" by supernatural means, while others feel he achieved it through other natural mechanisms (such as natural selection). Hope this helps.

 

[keyarch]

I'm a 'YBC', meaning a Young Biological Creationist.
This means that I interpret Genesis 1:1 not to be an overview statement, but rather an account of the creation of the universe and the unfinished globe (earth - covered in water and thick cloud layer) some time in the distant past and before the six literal days of what was made and created - light, atmosphere, biology etc.

A good book on this topic is “The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits” by Gorman Gray. I can provide a link when I have permission.
I have put together a narrative of Genesis 1 that is too long for this post but I can provide a link when I have permission (my post got booted the first time).

The Young Earth Creationist that I've contacted (including Kent Hovind) point back to Exodus 20:11 as an argument against my interpretation. But, most English translations add the word “in” which gives it different meaning. I think the literal translation (which is a reference to Genesis 1) is:

”For six days the Lord made (fashioned, worked on, prepared etc.) the heaven (includes working on the upper firmament with the Sun and Moon) and the earth” .... etc. So to count the six days, we need to look at when the first day started and what was in existence before that.
In my opinion, to say that the whole universe was created in that six days, and especially that earth was first and then the stars, is taking Ex. 20:11 out of context. Also, Genesis 1:16 does not say He created the stars at that time but that they were there to provide illumination with the moon. "He made the stars also" should read "and He made the lesser light to rule the night, with the stars."


I think recognizing that the core elements of earth may be older than 6,000 years but mixed in with the young biology of 6,000 years may solve a lot of mysteries that both sides of the issue have encountered.
I also think that too many people are at the extremes on this. They either think that everything is millions to billions of years old, or that the whole universe is 6,000 years old. I just don’t see why the universe and the core elements of the earth have to be combined together with biology and what took place in that week.

Try out the YBC model, and see how it fits the original scripture and the general revelation that God has given all of us. I'd be interested to see what problems it may have that I haven't found yet.

Also, please don't confuse the YBC model with the gap theory. They really are different.

 

[mark kennedy]

I actually like the concept of the earth being very old. It would explain a lot but I don't hold that life is very old. I dont have a real problem with the dating techniques but I don't trust them. Actually when it comes to the actual age of the earth I am flexible.

 

[keyarch]

I actually like the concept of the earth being very old. It would explain a lot but I don't hold that life is very old. I dont have a real problem with the dating techniques but I don't trust them. Actually when it comes to the actual age of the earth I am flexible.

I'd be interested to hear your comments about my post on the YBC (young biological creation) model. It's basically Old Universe, and old earth covered in water at the start of the 6 days of creation. Which means a literal translation of the creation week and that no biology existed before that time (some 6,000 ya.). It's just what scripture says, with Genesis 1:1 telling us what happened in time before he made the earth inhabitable. Many an expert has studied Genesis 1:1 and concluded that it's not an overview statement.
What puzzles me is why this model is usually not included in the various interpretations that are out there.