Scholars who have affirmed various aspects of the Young Biosphere Creation model
The following quotes from Bible-believing scholars have been noticed — in retrospect –by readers of The Age of the Earth: What are the Biblical Limits.
Earlier generations of Biblical scholars were accustomed to point out…that the unscientific nature of the cosmology of Genesis 1 was evident in such matters as the mention of ‘grass’…prior to the creation of the heavenly bodies….it must first be noted that the standpoint of the first chapter in Genesis is an ideal geocentric one, as though the writer were actually on the earth at the time in a position to record the developing phases of created life as he experienced them. From such a standpoint the heavenly bodies would only become visible when the dense cloud-covering of the earth had dispersed to a large extent, subsequent to the formation of an atmosphere (raqya).
– R.K. Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1969. p. 554 (an evangelical textbook)
The point of view of the first chapter of Genesis is the earth as being prepared for the habitation of man. As the book proceeds, the point of view rapidly becomes Palestine, as the promised home of the Hebrew people. As the Holy Spirit revealed to Moses facts in regard to creation which were obviously unavailable for human investigation, or even speculation, the point of view is consistently maintained,–this earth as being prepared for the home of man.  This physical point of view is appropriate for Moses’ purpose in instructing the Hebrew people in their essential relationship with God.
Regardless of one’s physical astronomical theory of the origin of this earth, it is evident that in its early stages it was in a state of much greater heat than at the present time. The earth would be surrounded by dense banks of clouds, because the heat would cause the water to exist in the form of vapor. These clouds would gradually condense and the atmosphere would clear as the cooling process went forward. Thus the light of the sun would differentiate day from night long before the sun would be visible in the heavens to determine the seasons and days and years with any precision…
6. The Fourth Day (Gen. 1:14-19).
Note that, although the epoch [day] [is] chiefly characterized by the heavenly bodies becoming visible… The new functioning of the sun would naturally affect all other natural processes. We must not fail to see the theological implications of Moses’ statement that God made the stars. The heathen round about worshiped the stars as gods.”
Notes: 13. The suggestion that the physical point of view in Genesis 1 is the surface of the earth, and that the earth would be in darkness when it was first created because, being in a state of heat, it would be surrounded by dense banks of clouds; and that the light of the first three days was from the sun although the sun and other heavenly bodies were not visible until the fourth day; these suggestions came to me years ago from the writings of Professor Gruber of the Lutheran Seminary in Chicago. See “The Creative Days” by L. Franklin Gruber in the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1919. –
– James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962. I: pp.147, 153. (However, Mr. Gray’s book interprets the Days of Genesis chapter 1 as literal, 24 hour days.)
In Gen. 1. 27, it is said that God created man male and female; in chapter 2:7, it is said, that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” It thus appears that forming out of preexisting material comes within the Scriptural idea of creating… There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo [Gen. 1:1] by the simple word of God but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes. Augustine clearly recognizes this idea….
Thus far there is little room for diversity of opinion. But when the question is asked, How long was the universe in passing from its chaotic to its ordered state?* such diversity is at once manifested. According to the more obvious interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, this work was accomplished in six days. This therefore has been the common belief of Christians. It is a belief founded on a given interpretation of the Mosaic record, which interpretation, however, must be controlled not only by the laws of language, but by facts. This is at present an open question. The facts necessary for its decision have not yet been duly authenticated. The believer may calmly await the result [e.g., the findings of astronomy].”
– Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology. vol 1 (of 3) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1873, (1979 edition). p.558. *[Mr. Gray, however, would clarify that the earth was deserted and empty (Gen. 1:2), not chaotic. At that point it was a completed planet, yet without a biosphere.]
In the course of the second three days [4-6], the clouds eventually diminished to allow the heavenly luminaries to shine on the earth’s surface (v.14), though light itself had been created long before (v.3).
– J. Barton Payne. The Theology of the Older Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962. p.137
…it is saying too much, when we assume that the formation of the starry world, or even of our own solar and planetary system, had its beginning in the fourth creative period [day]. This representation is inorganic, abnormal. It is just as little supported by and sound cosmogony as demanded by the scriptural text [of Gen. 1:14,15]
The Scripture recognizes also [in addition to the angelic heavenly realm] the distinction between an earlier heavenly stellar world [Gen. 1:1] and the system to which this earth belongs, as we find it indicated on the fourth day’s work…
– John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Genesis-Leviticus. Zondervan, 12 double volume printing, 1960, pp. 171,185.
“In the beginning” introduces the developments in preparation of the universe for man. Whether this dateless date refers to God’s original creation  to God’s initial act in getting the world ready for man, is a matter of interpretation.
Note:  Estimates for the age of the universe vary so much that it is impossible to suggest an acceptable date. Einstein suggested ten billion years as the age of the earth. Computations of the age of the galaxies of stars vary from two to ten billion years…
Samuel J. Shultz, The Old Testament Speaks, 2nd edition. NY: Harper and Row, 1970, p.13.
“There is an indefiniteness of the time of creation. It may have been millions of years ago just as easily as thousands, for the Hebrew word is indefinite.”
“DeLuc, in 1799, wrote the chronology of Moses as only commencing with the creation of man…that the first sentence of Genesis has no connection with the subsequent verses…”
– Mc’Clintock, writing in 1878 (vol. II, p, 556; vol III, p. 796. Cited by Clifford Lillo in Creation Research Society Quarterty critique of Mr. Gray’s book.).
Note: These quotes show that other writers have made conclusions similar to Mr. Gray on some of the interpretations in his book, The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits? However, there are notable differences and none of the references below are in any way a complete biblical picture; some contain what the author regards as important errors along with some important truth. Readers are urged to absorb the complete picture as presented in his book.