# Views On Creationism...



## Jared (Mar 26, 2010)

I was wondering what the most prevalent view on creationism is here on the Puritan Board. I tend to lean toward old earth, though I'm open to reconsidering. Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are.


----------



## Bookmeister (Mar 26, 2010)

Framework.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 26, 2010)

Alan is wrong!

The correct biblical view is literal 6/24. I hold to a young earth.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Mar 26, 2010)

I hold to YEC.


----------



## chbrooking (Mar 26, 2010)

I'm framework in terms of the literary structure of the text, and undecided on the age of the earth. They are separate questions.

You could be framework and still believe in 6/24, young earth and all of that. In fact, the 6/24 and framework view is my position. As for age of the earth ... I'm not competent to work through all of the evidence, and nobody seems to help me. Both sides argue past one another without genuine clash in the debate.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 26, 2010)

I hold to creationism.


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 26, 2010)

I agree with Moses.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 26, 2010)

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the Bible on this one.


----------



## raekwon (Mar 26, 2010)

Skyler said:


> I hold to creationism.


 
Hah.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 26, 2010)

So Josh, you would say that you hold to framework then?


----------



## lynnie (Mar 26, 2010)

I am a young earth creationist and geocentrist ( earth is at the center of the solar system and universe) and global flooder (high mountains pushed up after Noah, all land covered with water)

Having said that I am also in the camp that believes this earth was very very different before and after the fall (and different again before and after the flood.) A day in Eden could have been 48 hours or 100 hours or 300 hours, and photosynthesis could have been different before the curse, we just don't know. So I am in the 6 day- but who knows how many hours- camp. Long enough for Adam to name all the animals! I figure the 6000 year old estimate is OK but maybe it was 8000 of our current years, or 10,000 or 12,000.(Not millions or billions) I am uncomfortable with extrapolating our current astronomical paradigm back to Eden before the fall too exactly in hours, we just don't know. I tend to think at creation there were 360 days in a year, perfectly aligned with the moon.


----------



## chbrooking (Mar 26, 2010)

austinww said:


> I agree with Moses.


 
Oh ... so you're framework, too.


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 26, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Moses.
> ...


 
Yes, I hold that the literary framework of Genesis is a historical account of actual events.


----------



## chbrooking (Mar 26, 2010)

austinww said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> > austinww said:
> ...


 
That was a GREAT comeback!


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 26, 2010)

The main point regarding the first books of the Bible is that God created out of nothing and that it was very good. Man is in a creator-creature relationship with a God who personally intervenes in the universe before the fall in the covenant of works, and after the fall in the covenant of grace. Don't miss the forest for the trees.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 26, 2010)

Most people on here are Young Earth. I am Old Earth, along with a few others - we are certainly in the minority.


----------



## Bookmeister (Mar 26, 2010)

Andrew refuses to believe we both may be correct. I just choose to not go beyond the text.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 26, 2010)

Bookmeister said:


> Andrew refuses to believe we both may be correct. I just choose to not go beyond the text.


You mean the Hebrew narrative text with more was-consecutives than any other OT passage?


----------



## E Nomine (Mar 26, 2010)

I'm an old earth day-ager.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 26, 2010)

Fred, don't forget the direct object marker that occurs in Genesis 1 and 2, which happens in narrative and not poetry.


----------



## Jared (Mar 26, 2010)

I have been old earth day-age for a while now. Mostly because of Wayne Grudem. Of course, I don't believe in evolution. 

But I heard John Piper mention framework. I would be interested in finding out more about that view.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 26, 2010)

Most of my ministry I was old earth (Hugh Ross variety). Since reconsidering the issue a few years ago, I am YEC.

Listening to a couple of astrophysicists, several geologists, a plate tectonician, an award winning geneticist, and a molecular biologist made me feel much better about the position I saw the text inexorably leading to. The Framework theory strikes me as problematical exegetically. It always seemed an overly clever, overly elaborate, virtually incomprehensible fig leaf for people who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Honestly, Genesis 1-3 is the seed plot for SOOOOO much in the rest of the Bible. Take it figuratively, and you will have a variety of downstream problems with Adam-Christ, sin, death, marriage, homosexuality, the role of men and women, etc.

Shifting views of Genesis 1-3 may not have been the primary cause of theological liberalism. However, insofar as Darwinism was THE intellectual expression of modernist revisionist rebellion against God in the 19th century, accommodational views (Chalmers and his Gap theory in the 19th century and the Framework theory in the 20th), theological accommodation was a material cause of liberalism in the church.


----------



## Jared (Mar 26, 2010)

I should probably clarify that Piper said that he leans toward the traditional young earth view. But he said that the other viable position that he sees is the framework model.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------

I could be wrong about that. Whatever view John Sailhamer holds, that's the other view that Piper sees as a possibility.


----------



## chbrooking (Mar 26, 2010)

First of all, the framework view is based upon a narrative structure, not a poetic form. Prose can be highly structured too.
Secondly, framework does not deny an historical Adam, the fall, or any such thing.

That some who embrace Darwinism might be drawn to the framework view is no argument against the framework view itself. The framework view doesn't require Old Earth or evolution or non-historicity or any such thing. Those are separate questions entirely.


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 26, 2010)

I'm a Young Earth Creationist.


----------



## Nate (Mar 26, 2010)

I'm YEC.


----------



## JennyG (Mar 27, 2010)

YEC. Seriously, I don't believe anyone could take anything else from the text if it weren't for modern
wall-to-wall old-earth conditioning


----------



## Bookworm (Mar 29, 2010)

YEC, because it seems most consonant with the Scriptural record. Personally I've also found it the most exciting position from a scientific perspective, and not at all boring like theistic evolution ("We just agree with the neo-darwinians but say God did it").


----------



## Jeffriesw (Mar 29, 2010)

Can someone explain the "Framework" view for me please?

Sorry If I am derailing the OP a bit...


----------



## TimV (Mar 29, 2010)

Dr. M is on a roll. It either means what it says or doesn't. Really, when Scripture gives Adam's age, was the figure his age? If he was 930 years old at his death, then the days are literal. Or......930 means, well, what? a million years?

Like the FV junk, when you change stuff at the beginning of an assembly line, you've got to change everything else down the line.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 3, 2010)

I hold to the belief that the heavens and earth were formed and filled in six 24 hour days, but that the heavens and earth themselves were created some time before the first day. See Genesis 1:1-2. Five minutes before or five billion years before?

Since the Earth was more central to God's plan than the Heaven of Heavens and the angels, it was probably created, prepared and waiting for God to form and fill it from the very beginning, at the same point that God created the Heaven of Heavens and the angels, Genesis 1:1-2.

I'm slightly open to the possibility of being wrong, and some form of Old Earth Creationism being right. But I don't see Old Earth Creationism being as consistent with the plain words of Scripture. Young Earth Creationism is more theologically satisfying.

There are scientific problems with all the theories: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, Atheistic/Agnostic Evolution. So it's better to go with what's biblical.


----------

