Storming Young-Earth Creationism ( is Genesis 1 the only text at issue?)

Christianity Today ^ | 4/30/2009 | Marcus R. Ross

[SeekAndFind]

In The Bible, Rocks and Time (IVP Academic), geologists and Reformed Christians Davis Young and Ralph Stearley try to convince young-earth creationists (YECs) to abandon their position. First, they argue that the Creation account in Genesis 1 need not be understood as a historical narrative documenting the creation of the universe and its inhabitants in six normal (rotational) days. Second, they argue that the data from geology point unwaveringly to a planet of exceedingly ancient age.

I particularly appreciated Young and Stearley's historical overview of church beliefs on Genesis and Creation. Their careful documentation puts to rest the claims of other old-earth proponents that the church fathers held views compatible with an ancient earth. They likewise present the origins of modern geology well, particularly within the broader historical backdrop of Christian influences on scientific thought.

But BR&T is essentially a negative critique. Theologically, the authors seek to show that Genesis 1 need not be understood as describing six rotational days. But if so, which competing view should we adopt? They clearly dislike the "ruin-reconstruction theory" or "gap theory" (there was a large gap of time between the first and second verses of Genesis), and display reservations about the day-age view (the six days were much longer periods). The authors favor some kind of allegorical view (e.g., the "framework hypothesis"), but are steadfast that they will not make a positive case for any of these.

[editor-surveyor]

Getting more amusing!

You ‘clipboard’ something to use in your reply, but don’t bother to read it? Or is it simply that you didn’t understand it? My point was that “darkness on the face of the deep” can only mean that it was prior to the existance of any “heavenly bodies.”

[JohnnyM]

I see you resort to ad hominem attacks, which is truly unfortunate.

You claim that the entire universe was represented by the deep and that the entire universe began as a sphere of water, which is not what the text says. It refers to the waters on the earth. The waters were separated and the firmament in between was the sky.

You have yet to explain why God did not deem the creation on the second day good, and you would rather resort to ad hominem attacks and gross distortion then have a rational conversation.

JM

[JohnnyM]

Here is another verse that supports my claim that angels were created prior to creation:

Job 28:4-7
Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

From this passage in Job, it would seem that the angels were present at the foundation of the Earth.

JM

[editor-surveyor]

" It refers to the waters on the earth. The waters were separated and the firmament in between was the sky."

An unsupportable assumption when one turns to the original language.

[editor-surveyor]

But the foundation of the Earth was not the totality of creation. Bits and pieces of unrelated misunderstanding continue to flow.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“You ‘clipboard’ something to use in your reply, but don’t bother to read it? Or is it simply that you didn’t understand it? My point was that “darkness on the face of the deep” can only mean that it was prior to the existance of any “heavenly bodies.””

I both copied it and read it. Given that it wasn’t the
Hebrew word you referred to, I was puzzled by your assertions.

I’m OK with darkness on the face of the deep existing before heavenly bodies.

Best,
ampu