Where I fault the OEC is in failing to acknowledge that they must accept 2 more assumptions than the YECs to hold the OEC position. First, OECs must assume that the first verse does not include the 6 days of creation but covers a vast expanse of undetermined time. YECs assume that it does include the 6 days of creation and there is no expanse of undetermined time. So both positions have 1 assumption each.
Then the OECs must add the assumption that the sun, moon, stars, galaxies and other celestial bodies were created in the first verse before they are named as being created on the 4th Day but were somehow hidden. Otherwise, OECs just have the earth sitting in empty space for assumed vast periods of time for no apparent reason. This is the second assumption OECs must make and this is where the OEC argument begins to weaken.
The third assumption OECs must make is that the reference to creating the sun, moon and stars on the 4th Day does not represent an actual act of creation, but merely an act of revealing.
Basically, OECs must add 2 additional assumptions than the YECs, one of which requires that they depart from a literal reading of Genesis wrt the creation of celestial bodies on the 4th Day, in order to reconcile the Biblical account to the OEC account.
This is where the OECs compromise and place the word of men wrt long-ages above the Word of God. This is an inferior position from a Christian perspective. It is also inferior from a purely logical perspective as you must hold that 3 assumptions are correct for the OEC position vs 1 for the YEC position.
Make sense?
Yeah, and its a good point(s). A couple of things though,
“Otherwise, OECs just have the earth sitting in empty space for assumed vast periods of time for no apparent reason.”
A reason I can see is the earth might’ve had to cool from a molten state and adsorb a number of meteor hits like the moon has before the earth reached the condition of Gen.!:2.
How long was that? Unknown if 1:1 is a statement of the origins of heaven and earth before the preparation of the earth for habitation by man.
I skipped ahead to this comment because I want to take this up with you at a later time.
“The third assumption OECs must make is that the reference to creating the sun, moon and stars on the 4th Day does not represent an actual act of creation, but merely an act of revealing.”
Before I come back to you I would ask a favor, an easy one:
Would you look up the meaning of at least three words? (1) create Gen.1:1,
(2)made Gen. 1:7, 16 and (3) set Gen. 1:17.
It has a bearing on the subject and it’s easier for you to look them up than for me to copy and paste.
Here’s where to look:
Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary - HTML BibleKing James Bible Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary Index. Send To Printer. Hebrew Dictionary, Greek Dictionary. 1 (’ab) to 100 (’agmown) ...
www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRINDEX.htm - 14k
Just find “Main Bible Index” and go from there.
I use this site as it’s easy to navigate.
If you’ll do that then we can take our discussion a bit further. Agreed?
No. You have completely -- perhaps unknowingly -- distored things.
Read the first two chapters in Genesis from the perspective of someone standing on planet earth and what they would have seen. It all falls into line.