Page 51 - Foundations

Origen, for example, who lived from 186 to about 254 A.D., and to whom the original languages of
the Bible were very familiar, has this to say in his great work, De Principiis, at Gen. 1.1: "It is
certain that the present firmament is not spoken of in this verse, nor the present dry land, but rather
that heaven and earth from which this present heaven and earth that we now see afterwards
borrowed their names." And that he saw verse 2 as a description of a "casting down" of the original
is borne out quite clearly by his subsequent observation that the condition resulted from a
"disruption" which is best described, he suggests, by the Latin verb dejicere, ‘to throw down.’
[Source: Ibid]

This doctrine has waxed and waned within the church. Few Christians today realize that as recently
as the 1950s the ruin/reconstruction doctrine found wide support in American and European
churches. One online encyclopedia provides the following statement.

“In fact, with one prominent exception, virtually all of the leading creationists of the 1920s endorsed
either the Day-Age or Gap Interpretation of Genesis. The exception was Seventh-Day Adventist
teacher and amateur geologist, George McCready Price, who followed Adventist Prophet, Ellen G.
White, in limiting the history of life on earth to about 6,000 years. Price attributed most
fossil-bearing rock formations to the geological disruptions of the Biblical flood.”
[Source: Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia]

Arthur Custance expresses a similar view to that which has led me to write this present book. He
makes mention of the importance of a Christian having a correct understanding of foundational
teachings.

The importance of establishing its intended meaning does not stem from the fact that if it is
interpreted in one particular way it can then be used to resolve certain apparent conflicts between
the Mosaic cosmogony and modern geological theory. Its importance stems from the fact that it is
a foundation statement; and the foundation statements of any belief system are the more critical as
they lie nearer the base of its structure. An error at the end of a long line of reasoning may be very
undesirable but it is much less dangerous than an error at the beginning. And in the first three
chapters of Genesis we have the basic facts upon which are erected the whole theological
superstructure of the Christian faith. Uncertainty here, or misinterpretation, is likely to have
repercussions throughout the whole of the rest of the system of belief.
[Source: Without Form and Void, Arthur Custance]

With this in mind, I entreat the reader to patiently consider the Biblical evidence for a much older
earth that was at some distant point destroyed until the God began the work of reconstruction that
is described from Genesis 1:3 and forward. The first argument I would present is taken from a
citation from a book published by J. Harris in 1847 titled The Pre-Adamite Earth.

"Now, that the originating act, described in the first verse, was not meant to be included in the
account of the six Adamic days, is evident from the following considerations: first, the creation of
the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth days begins with the formula 'And God said'. It is only
natural, therefore, to conclude that the creation of the first day begins with the third verse where the
said formula first occurs, 'And God said, Let there be light'. But if so, it follows that the act