I personally believe in the Young-Earth Creation at the same time not holding fast the first day mentioned in Genesis, including Genesis 1:1-2. There may have been a time difference from Genesis 1:1-2 through Genesis 1:3; however, there is no evidence that states the same. This should not be, however, discordant issues for Christian believers since those who hold the first verse is a different time period, are still being faithful to the scriptures. This allows for what Driscoll and Breshears misname “Historical Creationism.” It is the Young-Earth creationism that is connected to a long line of scholarly interpretations that span centuries’ and have dominated the field. It rather seems unfair for Driscoll to label his view as ‘historic’ when nothing could be further from the truth. Young-Earth view by far is the most accurate view to the reading of Moses’ account of Genesis 1-3.
I believe that God created ex nihilo, or “from nothing,” as the basic definition of the bible word “create” (in Hebrew “bar’a”) suggests. “Bar’a” always has God as the subject of the verb and the item that is being created did not exist previous to God’s action of creation. Which means the universe has God as its preliminary cause and thus the universe had its purpose and design. This particular view sets the standard of our ethics. This also influences our views and meaning of life (euthanasia & abortion), our views on sexuality (homosexuality & pornography) Our core definition of marriage, our values, morals and ethics, our views on justice, and overall our trust in God’s word.
Driscoll’s article helped me understand that there are some views that can be acceptable in Christianity, but not all the ones the author is willing to accept. I personally believe that a Christian’s view of Creation should be a dividing factor if grace and teaching have been offered. One cannot claim Christ as the redeemer and hold on to the other four views (Literary framework, Gap-theory, Day-Age view & theistic Evolution). It would be a false pretense to believe that there was a pre-adamic race that fell, then why is Adam’s fall a big deal and the need for a savior? If Genesis 1 and 2 are poetry or metaphors, they why even believe the God created this world or believe even the rest of the Bible? If the ‘days’ are geological ages, then the days are out of order as described in God’s word, a mistake. If millions of years of evolution occurred, then death occurred before the fall. The understanding would be something like this: death, bloodshed, suffering, sickness & disease for millions of years leading to a modern man. If death is normal part of life, they why do you need a savior? The result of each of these views in the article is that they put views of a scientist before faith and the Word of God.
2. After reading Genesis 1 – 3, what details in these chapters influence you the most in trying to decide how literally you should read these chapters? Explain why your approach is...