Old Earth Creation

[Elisha1961]

In the Reformed secton, there is a poll going in that talks about what you believe re: Creation. One is Old Earth Creation. Looked in the Wiki and did not see it. Can some one define, explain it with scripture please. Thanks.

 

[Tinker Grey]

OEC covers a fairly broad range of ideas.

Roughly, OECs believe the Genesis 1-11 explains what God actually, factually, literally did. However, they believe that the earth is old. Scripturally, some OECs posit a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2. Some OECs fall in the category of day-age theorist. That is, since Peter says that 1 day is as a thousand years (and I believe a psalmist or the writer of Job says something similar) then the "days" in Genesis could be aeons.

But, OECs are perhaps the hardest of the 3 Christian groups to pin down (the other 2 being Theistic Evolution -- TE -- and Young Earth Creation -- YEC.)

HTH

 

[Tinker Grey]

I went over there. I see they have Gap Theory separate from OEC.

I think as general as the poll seems to be that separating Gap Theory from OEC is hair splitting.

YMMV.

 

[gluadys]

In the Reformed secton, there is a poll going in that talks about what you believe re: Creation. One is Old Earth Creation. Looked in the Wiki and did not see it. Can some one define, explain it with scripture please. Thanks.

There are some good basic definitions of the full spectrum of Christian beliefs on origins here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t842...hristian-belief-on-origins-where-are-you.html

For a defence of OEC (Day-Age version) a couple of good web-sites are:

Reasons to Believe
http://www.reasons.org/

and

Answers in Creation
http://www.answersincreation.org/

 

[Assyrian]

I went over there. I see they have Gap Theory separate from OEC.

I think as general as the poll seems to be that separating Gap Theory from OEC is hair splitting.

YMMV.

No I think Gap is quite different. Gap proposes a different history of the planet to the one science has discovered, though it does recognise the age of the earth. OEC is quite happy with the history of our planet and the different creatures that lived at different ages in the past. Their only problem is with the idea that this is the result of evolution rather than direct divine intervention. You can be OEC and believe in common ancestry as long as you believe the changes are miraculous rather than natural.

They tend to be day age, but interpret the days consistently with the geological record. All they need to step over into TE is to realise that God is clever enough to come up with a mechanism to bring about these changes naturally and operate providentially rather than miraculously.

Now most TEs, at least on this forum follow the frameword interpretation of Genesis, but it is not a necessity of TE. TE means you accept the evolutionary history of life on earth and believe that God is responsible. It does not depend on a specific interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thanks for the clarification, Assyrian.

I noticed that folks over there kept referring to this "framework" theory or interpretation of Genesis.

I've never heard of it before. Can you give a synopsis?

 

[Elisha1961]

What is common ancestry?

 

[Elisha1961]

BTW Thanks all

 

[Elisha1961]

Ok was given this site in the Poll section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism#Types_of_Old_Earth_Creationism

explains a lot....very complicated topic...wow

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for the clarification, Assyrian.

I noticed that folks over there kept referring to this "framework" theory or interpretation of Genesis.

I've never heard of it before. Can you give a synopsis?

The first link below is a brief introduction to the framework interpretation. The others are longer papers by the two principal originators of the interpretation, the Rev. Lee Irons and the late Rev. Meredith Kline.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html

The framework interpretation basically takes the focus off the Genesis days as a literal chronological sequence and looks at them in terms of topical exegesis. Rather than the days following one another on a calendar, they are seen to focus on God's creative work from different perspectives.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't know that there is such a thing as an orthodoxy for Old Earth Creationism. I personally could care less how old this globe we are standing on is, much less the rest of the created universe. I am a self proclaimed Young Earth Creationist with virtually no interest in radiometric testing. My sole interest is in Adam being specially created from the dust of the earth as a sovereign act of the Elohim (God Almighty) in Genesis as revealed to Moses through the 'I AM THAT I AM', the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

If the earth laid formless and void for billions of years before God created life it makes absolutely no difference to me as a creationist.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The first link below is a brief introduction to the framework interpretation. The others are longer papers by the two principal originators of the interpretation, the Rev. Lee Irons and the late Rev. Meredith Kline.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html

The framework interpretation basically takes the focus off the Genesis days as a literal chronological sequence and looks at them in terms of topical exegesis. Rather than the days following one another on a calendar, they are seen to focus on God's creative work from different perspectives.

Thank you. I just glanced at the first link, so far. I can understand the appeal in that it seems to allow a way of looking at Genesis that suggests that THIS is what God intended all along. Also at first glance, it seems as desparate to me as Gerald Schroeder's attempts (well, I read only The Science of God) to synchronize science and scripture.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't know that there is such a thing as an orthodoxy for Old Earth Creationism. I personally could care less how old this globe we are standing on is, much less the rest of the created universe. I am a self proclaimed Young Earth Creationist with virtually no interest in radiometric testing. My sole interest is in Adam being specially created from the dust of the earth as a sovereign act of the Elohim (God Almighty) in Genesis as revealed to Moses through the 'I AM THAT I AM', the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

If the earth laid formless and void for billions of years before God created life it makes absolutely no difference to me as a creationist.

Interestingly, I think I recall one of our resident TEs believing in the special creation of Adam and Eve -- one way or the other and regardless of exactly how. I'd say who except I am not sure of my memory on that point.

In that sense, there are some TEs that you are on the same page with.

 

[KerrMetric]

I personally could care less

It's couldn't care less.

Why is America the only place on the planet that seems to commonly state this the wrong way?

Just a pet peeve.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's couldn't care less.

Why is America the only place on the planet that seems to commonly state this the wrong way?

Just a pet peeve.

I always thought the expression was 'I don't know much and I could care less', abbreviated to 'could care less'.

 

[gluadys]

I always thought the expression was 'I don't know much and I could care less', abbreviated to 'could care less'.

"I don't know much" means you do know a little. While your knowledge is limited it does not register zero.

Similarly "I could care less" means you do care some. Your concern does not register zero, so it could be less than it is.

If you have no concern about the matter at all, then the proper turn of phrase is "I couldn't care less" which implies that your concern registers as zero and can't go any lower.

Probably the original phrase was "I don't know much and I care less." This implies both limited knowledge and limited concern, with the concern being less than the knowledge. How the "could" or "couldn't" got inserted is one of those mysteries of evolving slang.

 

[Assyrian]

I get the feeling 'I could care less' has it's roots in Yiddish, and as such is as usefully analysed as 'what am I chopped liver?'

 

[juvenissun]

The framework interpretation basically takes the focus off the Genesis days as a literal chronological sequence and looks at them in terms of topical exegesis. Rather than the days following one another on a calendar, they are seen to focus on God's creative work from different perspectives.

This is a good illustration on not reading the Scripture literally. It is certain that there are many such "theories" around. Basically, I think we could read them like reading the newspaper, when we have time.

 

[gluadys]

I get the feeling 'I could care less' has it's roots in Yiddish, and as such is as usefully analysed as 'what am I chopped liver?'

That sounds plausible. It does have a Yiddish feel to it.