Old-Earth Creationism

ICR ^ | March 2009 | Old-Earth Creationism by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Old-Earth Creationism

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Many evangelical leaders today, unfortunately, have capitulated to the evolutionary timescale of modern unbelieving geologists and astronomers. They feel that they must somehow reinterpret the Genesis record of creation to allow for billions of prehistoric years, which the evolutionists must have in order to make cosmic evolution and biological evolution seem feasible. This compromise is necessary, they say, in order to win scientists and other intellectuals to the Lord...

[Ping-Pong]

Actually if you read in Gen about Noah God said he was perfect in all his generations. the word perfect there is the same word used in describing the sacrificial animals. Being perfect with out spot or blemish. Noah's bloodline had not been corrupted. If Satan had been able to corrupt the entire human bloodline then there would not of been anyone to whom Jesus could of been born to.

Excellent comment!

[campaignPete R-CT]

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, 42
cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.

[campaignPete R-CT]

“The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit.”

[Seven_0]

These star references are not our physical stars but angelic, heavenly beings. There is a lot of metaphorical, pictorial depiction in Revelation and I get confused as to when it is literal and when it is metaphorical. This is one of the passages I really don't think refers to literal stars.

I agree, it is not literal stars falling. As for when it is literal and when it is metaphorical, I always look for both. Proceed with caution here, a wrong turn can lead to a cult.

Back to Genesis. I personally don't think that Satan was created before the beginning (Genesis 1:1). If there is a gap in the six literal days, the obvious place would be Genesis 1:2. Thus when God said let there be light, We see resurrection. This is an interesting way to start the scripture, a metaphor, birth, death, and resurrection.

If this is true then we can confirm it and it gives us a gap an Genesis 1:2. You know the author. Is this the sort of thing you would expect God to do? If so, then you won't be surprised to see this structure elsewhere, throughout scripture.

[1forall]

If this is true then we can confirm it and it gives us a gap an Genesis 1:2. You know the author. Is this the sort of thing you would expect God to do? If so, then you won't be surprised to see this structure elsewhere, throughout scripture.

Could God have created a billion *other* worlds/universes or whatever He wanted (including angels etc) in between v1 and v2? Absolutely. Could He have hidden it from us? Absolutely. Would these creations/creatures have any bearing on us or the remainder of scripture? Not in the sense that it affects Jesus or my salvation I would imagine. However, it reduces the message that we are special to Him and more of a side thought, or a second (or third or fourth etc etc) attempt at making something work.

If I'm more of a side thought or one of many attempts at whatever He had in mind, it puts a measure of doubt in my mind regarding who God is and for me that smacks too closely to what Satan's tactics are - creating doubt about God's Word. I personally wouldn't promote that as an option but my faith may not be as strong as yours.

I'm out for the day at soccer games but will check for replies manana.