Young and old earth creationism

Awhile back I read a proposal that young earth versus old earth creationim should be an issue over which we should separate (in the senses of both church membership and interchurch fellowship). I can agree, with caveats. Foremost in my mind is the question of what constitutes a young-earth view and an old-earth view of the creation. Obviously, evolution and theistic evolution are old old earth! However, by young earth do we mean one must hold creation very close in the vicinity of just over 6000 years ago? For example, below I notice two persons (one living and one dead) who propose a view of the earth created some 13,000 to 15,000 years ago. They seem to build the case on an interpretation of the Bible, without reference to scientific explanations of the age of the earth. Those calculations are over twice the age of standard young earth interpretation. On the other hand, this view is still a very young earth in comparison to the billions of years proposed by the theories of evolution and theistic evolution.

Baptist missionary to China T. P. Crawford wrote a curious book titled The Patriarchal Dynasties from Adam to Abraham, shown to cover 10,500 years, and the highest human life only 187 (Richmond, VA: Josiah Ryland & Co., 1877). In it he proposed the idea that the long years of time recorded of various antediluvians were the length of their patriarchal dynasties rather than the years of their physical life. Below from page 7, showing in 1876 he thought the age of the earth was 14,376 years old.

From Adam to the flood,                                             7,737 years.

" the flood to the birth of Abraham,                            2,763    "

            10,500

" the birth of Abraham to Christ,                                            2,000

            12,500  

" Christ to the present time,                                                    1,876

Making a sum total of                                                             14,376

I found this intriguing especially because I had run across such an idea probably 15 or 20 years ago on the Mountain Retreat website, an article by Tony Warren titled “The Biblical Timeline of Creation.” 

“The key to understanding the truth which is locked in the genealogies of scripture is in comprehending the differences in how God, rather than man, recorded the passing of time…they are meant to be understood as ‘Patriarchal References’ in God’s system of documenting time. In other words, God is using certain genealogical names as Patriarchs to date the world in those early years. Each Patriarch or father reference, is a family name representing a chunk or epoch of time.” 

Warren’s assessment is a little “younger” than Crawford’s – by 1488 years – as Warren dates 13,008 years from creation to the time of his writing in 1996. It is beyond my purpose to figure out where these diverge. Unless I missed it, Warren does not credit anyone else with the idea. I would doubt he knew about Crawford’s book. Nevertheless, by T. P. Crawford shows the idea preceded Warren by at least 120 years.

An approach to resolve the young-earth old-earth “gap” is the Gap Theory (aka Gap Creationism and Ruin-Reconstruction Theory), popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible. This theory holds that Genesis 1:1 refers to the original creation, but the fall of Satan formed a cataclysmic event that ruined it. Thus, the 24-hour days of creation recorded in the rest of the chapter are days of “re-creation” or “restoration,” rather than the beginning of a creation. In effect, this allows one to hold to “creation” in six literal 24-hour days while at the same time embracing an old earth of billions of years. Scofield’s original notes make this clear, but some of that clarity has been revised out of later editions.

“…three creative acts of God are recorded in this chapter…The first creative act [v. 1] refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for the geologic ages…Neither here [v. 3] nor in verses 14-18 is an original creative act implied…Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.” (C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, 1917, pp. 3-4.)

The Gap Theory entered into the mainstream of conservative biblical theology in response to the attacks of science, falsely so-called. The timeline of the appearance of this theory, as well as its use, define it as a scientific view looking for scripture to support it. It becomes a dumping ground for whatever “science” the theory holder cannot fit into his or her understanding of the Bible. When I was young, I knew a lot of the older generation Christians who had picked up the gap theory from their Scofield Bibles. Most of the regular church folks had not thought too much about it, had not teased out it, and accepted it as reasonable (because Scofield had included it in his Bible notes, and maybe also because they felt it answered some questions they did not know how to answer). However, once it is teased out, it creates more biblical and scientific problems than it solves. It is unsound, biblically. For example, advanced versions add pre-Adamic man before Adam (who the Bible says is the first man), and death before the fall (which the Bible says is the cause of death).

The Gap Theory is an old earth creation view that holds a “young earth” view from Genesis 1:3 forward. It distorts a normal reading of Genesis chapter 1. There are those who hold the Gap Theory unadvisedly (without due scrutiny), and those who hold it adamantly (as an integral part of their view of the Bible and creation).

The Patriarchal Dynasties Theory is still a young earth creation view though seeing the earth as slightly older than the predominant young earth view. It does not try to subsume the billions of years of evolutionary theory into its system. It does, however, adapt an unusual reading of the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs as not being particular father/son relationships. It does not, in my opinion, actually address the six 24-hour days of creation differently. It differs chronologically in interpreting the early years of the history of man.

All that said, I come back to the issue of separating, both in church membership and church-to-church fellowship. Views in the evolutionary realm are unquestionably unacceptable. In other cases, approach this carefully and individually. Take each case on its merits. What does the individual hold and what is he promoting? What does the church teach about the Bible, the creation, and what are they trying to promote? What will be results of fellowshipping or disfellowshipping?