Two areas of thought can appear to contradict or supplement a plain reading of the Scriptural text in Genesis 1. Both center around the worldview of those who study it for the truth of its meaning. Either as a literal historical narrative or a figurative, poetic expression to give an account of how we came to be and how it is that reality came to exist. The two areas of interest in this post concern the gap theory of creation and the framework hypothesis, which supports a poetic and figurative way of interpreting the Bible.
Gap Theory of Creation
Gap theorists advocate a period of millions of years between verses one and two of Genesis chapter 1. A considerable interval (gap) of time separating the condition of the Earth between when it was made and its condition just before the Lord’s further work to form and develop His creation. Some Bible believers view the separation of these verses as permitting a series of events to occur. Such as geological formation, atmospheric development, primitive life formation, and other precursors to evolution. Further theory and speculation come about to describe a “time” when Satan and his rebellion occurred, and the earth “became” formless and void. In contradiction to verse 2, “The earth was formless and void” to “The earth became formless and void.” 1
As an outright change in the Biblical text, the effort is to adjust the meaning of Scripture to fit a worldview that is not supported by sound Biblical exegesis, conventional hermeneutical practices, or the original Hebrew grammar of Genesis. The insertion of speculative events to reshape the meaning or inference of creation activity attempts to explain the formation of the Earth by presuppositional naturalism originating from human thought and its search for the origin of life and the nature of existence.
The presupposition of a chronology between Genesis 1:1 – 1:3, is precluded by how the verses were written as given by the Hebrew grammar in the Biblical text. The narration of sequence in the text makes use of conjunctive rules that articulate events or activity one after another in a linear time-bound fashion. While any interval duration is specified with time segments by definition, the vav (waw) consecutive prefix of a Hebrew verb supports a succession of events. While verses 1 and 2 do not consist of the vav consecutive in the Hebrew grammar, there can be no definitive conclusion these verses were in sequence. These two verses merely set the conditions in how the following text reads to describe creation as it occurred. Therefore, no chronology of events is described in the first three verses, and consequently, the “gap theory” has no merit or validity among those who hold a traditional and literal interpretation.
_____________
1. Heiser, Michael, The Gap Theory – Is it Biblical? – (YouTube, Nov. 26, 2019), accessed Mar. 27, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdZ5CsM0q2I.
Framework Hypothesis
The “Framework Hypothesis” is a way of bringing together a structured interpretation and understanding of Scripture’s creation account from a poetic and figurative perspective. In an effort to explain creation activity in a nonlinear, topical, and non-sequential way in contrast to the traditional and historical narrative that is widely held by those who have a high view of Scripture. Three distinctives outline the Framework Hypothesis way of interpretation to cast a different meaning to the method of creation and its associated timeline.2
The first contrast in the literary difference is from chronology to topology. In that, the way a reader views the expressed meaning of the Genesis account becomes set as a conceptual framework of arranged creative outcomes about purpose and function. A poetic form of literary art to tell a story about how everything came into being through origination and process. Second, the idea of ordinary providence rather than extraordinary providence requires environmental or atmospheric pre-conditions for creation to take place. In this condition, the course of expected natural events requires God to follow a method of creative origination. Finally, with the presence of the seventh day of rest, as explained in Genesis 2:2, framework advocates point to the previous six days of creation as a longer period of time because the seventh day is not yet ended. With the absence of the “there was evening, and there was morning” on the seventh day as read on all six days of creation prior.
All three premises taken together represent a naturalistic view of how God chose to bring about existence through His creative efforts. In a way that makes ordered sense that adheres to the observable laws of physics and nature to explain how reality came to be. As making room for discoveries that fit existing theoretical models of the material universe involving matter, space, and time. This interpretation of the creation is among numerous others categorized as concordist and non-concordist perspectives.3 Where some contemporary perspectives bring into view cultural factors that add strength to the Framework Hypothesis in the Genesis text. By drawing attention to Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) comparisons, cultural understanding takes shape as to how the creation account was understood and written about. As a matter of attributes vs. functions to identify or explain physically created objects. New figurative thought among contemporary believers further recognizes that time, and its sequence is less relevant to how and when creation came into existence. It is also a view that reinforced a time when Genesis was written in its cultural context and to those who seek to recognize Scripture as congruent with observable nature and current scientific rationale.
_____________
2. Terry Mortenson, Coming to Grips with Genesis, (Green Forest, AR, Master Books, 2018), 212
3. Jones, Michael, Genesis 1a: And God Said! – (YouTube, June 7, 2019), accessed March 27, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R24WZ4Hvytc.
Comments are closed.