There are arguments which I have observed which would seek to assert different occasions, or times or phases (depending on how the argument is worded) regarding Genesis 1:1 :
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [KJV]
and John 1:1 :
In the beginning was the word ... [KJV].
From my childhood, I have accepted these two as synonymous. At school, I vocally resisted the attempts of my Chemistry teacher to teach me of previous ages not spoken of in scripture and I vocally resisted the attempts of my biology teacher to teach me Darwinian evolution. I made my own inclinations quite clear.
Rather I read, as a schoolboy, in 1969, and accepted almost fully, Morris and Whitcomb's book 'The Genesis Flood, in which is set forth, in considerable scientific detail, what is now termed 'young earth creationism'.
In adulthood, I have continued to make myself clear, now as a Licentiate of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and now also as one with further training in Molecular Biochemistry, within the Pharmaceutical Industry.
To me, there is no valid need or reason to see the Genesis statement 'in the beginning' and John's statement 'in the beginning' as being anything other than synonymous.
And I am led to suspect (though nobody is actually admitting to it, thus far) that the unspoken need and reason for these two statements to be parted one from another in logic is that there might be inserted, between the two, a period of time - possibly a period of 'geological ages' - in order to satisfy the requirements of those who do not accept 'young earth creationism'.
In fact, I do not assert any age for the earth, for the first three 'days' (when no sun, moon or stars existed and when there was no intelligent being on the earth to observe, record or document any events) cannot, in my own view, be asserted to be any period of 'time' as we know it. And I am aware, having studied radioactivity and worked with many isotopes, that the age of the earth cannot be asserted by 'backward extrapolation' of current 'relative abundances'.
What I do assert, most strongly, is the fact of seventy generations from Adam to Christ (as made clear by Luke) ; the fact that evolution is not the reason for the existence of distinct species ; and the fact that the Flood was global and catastrophic, as is evidenced in contemporary geology, in unbiased archaeology and in many aspects of human history.
But I am curious as to the motivation of those who see 'two different beginnings'. Am I correct in my suspicion or is there other valid reason or motivation for this ?
My question relates to the two major divisions of 'young earth creationism' and 'old earth creationism' and is not a matter of denominations. I am interested in answers from both of those factions, for I, fundamentally, belong to neither.
EDIT (in response to answers regarding 'Ruin Reconstruction Theory' or 'Re-creation Theory') :
In answer to re-creation or re-construction theories, please see my own studies of 'waste and void' in pp 18-29 of the following link. This is a complex study and cannot be abbreviated.
(Requires sign-in to Google Docs.)