God the Creator. Henry E. Neufeld

would simply maintain that the Bible makes less statements, and less precise statements, about science.

      While old earth creationists generally believe that physical death occurred prior to the fall, they do see the fall of humanity (Genesis 3) as an incident in historical time. Humanity chose to disobey and as a result was separated from God, and made subject to mortality.

      Finally, old earth creationists generally hold that the flood (Genesis 6-9) was a local event, not a global one. With the geological record explained by an old earth, there would be little room in the evidence for a worldwide flood.

      3 Many who believe in a young earth object to being called young earth creationists and prefer to be called just "creationists" but I maintain the distinction. “Young age” emphasizes that the entire universe is young, not just this planet and solar system.

      4 Amongst many others, major representatives of this view include Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Gary Parker of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR, http://www.icr.org). Parker and Morris are the authors of What is Creation Science?

      5 Since I’m summarizing, let me also recommend reading the presentation of these elements by Dr. Kurt Wise in Faith, Form, and Time, Section 1, pages 3-39. I strongly recommend Dr. Wise’s book as the one book to read on young earth creationism–if you’re only going to read one, make it this one.

      6 But note that acceptance of biblical inerrancy doesn’t lead directly to a belief that Genesis 1 & 2 are narrative history. An Old Earth Creationist or Theistic Evolutionist can accept the doctrine of inerrancy, and many do. The key is believing that the text is written as narrative history.

      7 A good example of a scholar who holds this position is Tim LaHaye, who in his book How to Study the Bible for Yourself, chapter 11, page 159, makes it his first rule of hermeneutics.)

      8 Henry Neufeld, The Creation and Flood Stories, Gonzalez, Florida: Energion Publications, 2020, pp. 7-12.

      9 Some key representatives of this view include Dr. Gleason Archer, and Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe, http://www.reasons.org).

      10 “The Witness of the Bible to its Own Inerrancy,” quoted from http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_witness_archer.html [last accessed 09/23/2019].

      Variants on Young or Old Earth Creationism

      Ruin and Restoration

      The ruin and restoration theory is less prominent today than in the past, but it still has adherents.

      I have previously mentioned this theory in the pamphlet Christian Views of Origins11 and in my review of the book The Invisible War12 by Donald Grey Barnhouse. I discuss some of the translation issues involved in my translation and notes on the creation story.

      The ruin and restoration theory holds that the current creation is one of a series. Most advocates would hold that there was one creation, then a destruction, and then recreation, though some allow there may be a number that we don’t know about. The key basis for this doctrine is a translation of one word in Genesis 1:2, the Hebrew word which practically all translations render “was.” The Hebrew word here is “haytah” which is the perfect (suffix) form of the Hebrew verb “hayah” which means “happen,” “become,” or “was” in most cases. Advocates of the ruin and restoration theory argue that it should be translated “became” here rather than “was” and they point to the huge number of cases in which this verb is translated in that way throughout the Bible. The difficulty with this argument is that it ignores the syntax of the passage. The vast majority of the uses of this verb are also used with a different syntax. If one limits one’s study to those uses in which the syntax is similar to what it is in this verse, the statistics look much different.

      Advocates of this view also bring Isaiah 45:18 and Jeremiah 4:23-26 as descriptions of the destroyed world. Such interpretations ignore the use of figurative language and also take the passages out of context. Both are part of an existing prophetic oracle with a very specific application at a time that is now past, but easily identifiable. An interpreter would need to establish a strong contextual basis for applying these verses to a different time than is clearly the referrent of the passage of which they are part.

      What are the advantages of this view? Basically one can hold that the earth is old, which eliminates some of the clearest difficulties of the young earth view. Like old earth creation and theistic evolution, this view also allows for death prior to the creation story. In fact, it allows pretty complete destruction of life on the planet prior to the current creation. At the same time, advocates can take Genesis 1-3 absolutely literally, as long as the one translation change in Genesis 1:2 is allowed.

      As I noted earlier, the origin of sin is moved to a time earlier than the Garden of Eden, though this is not an exclusive view of ruin and restoration theory. Many Christians would hold to a rebellion of heavenly beings in what would be prehistoric time on earth. This view creates some interesting additional issues with understanding sin coming into the world and with sin death, which I will address briefly a little bit later.

      The disadvantages include the need to explain the recent date of the flood as determined from the genealogies of Genesis 1 & 11. One either has to assume gaps in these genealogies as do old earth creationists, in which case one may be accused of not constructing the text strictly enough, or one must deal with all of the archeological problems that a late date (24th century BCE) for the flood produces. In addition, the interpretation required for the texts in Isaiah 45:18 and Jeremiah 4:23-26 are very difficult to sustain.

      This position is largely held by those who accept dispensationalism as a system of interpretation. It is a minority position, but is nonetheless held by a substantial number of Christians, and should be given consideration.

      Spiritual Interpretations

      There are some interpretations that see this story simply as a spiritual illustration, explaining how God provides the logical basis of reality. God is continually the creator, and we derive ideas of how God acts from these stories of primeval times, just as we do so from stories of early patriarchs, prophets, and apostles.