A significant number of biblical scholars hold to a view of Scripture where the creation account in Genesis is interpreted as a historical narrative compared to figurative poetry. By contrast, those with a figurative, poetic reading of Creation often presuppose from a naturalistic worldview a storyline or framework of Creation made to fit human perspective or rationale. While there is plenty of symbolism in Scripture, the tension between the two can rest upon having explanatory power corresponding to what “makes sense” from human sensory perception and reason as validated by the scientific method. Or just by what makes sense to humanity as compared to what is given by revelatory explanation from the God of ancient historical record and Scripture. Where it can feel like a prevailing view centers around what humanity can perceive and produce as an individual or its social acceptance and reliance of observation on the scientific method to support a sensible position of normalcy. At least in terms of natural law or the laws of physics.
Even though the words of Genesis are delivered or settled according to authorial intent, the meaning of original manuscripts according to historical reference, tradition, and culture bears significant weight to many as a matter of contrast and comparison about how existence came to be. So, at face value, rationale about the Creation narrative provides for a surface-level view of meaning from a Creator. Then by looking deeper at root languages across the entire text of Scripture, a fuller and more comprehensive interpretation emerges with a clearer understanding and deeper significance. Especially with respect to how the Creation account in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 communicates speech-actions in terms of what was revealed by associated methods and sequence or timeline.
Interpretation Rests Upon Authorial Intent
It is the difference between a narrow view and a broad view in terms of four-dimensional thinking. So as to rest upon available and reasoned faith in what God has communicated through the authors of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). If anyone can surmise that an extra-natural existence beyond our confines of space and time is possible without scientific evidence that satisfies humanity, then new questions can form around the metaphysical nature of reality.
As a few questions lead to several more questions, just maybe there becomes a willingness beyond speculation to see and hear what theologians for thousands of years have been saying about what the prophets and apostles wrote. Namely, for example, in Romans 1:19 – 23, where God has explained that He has revealed Himself in what is observed or perceived through Created reality in the everyday world around us. Yet even further throughout the Universe itself.
New Testament Recognition of Creation & Its Origin
“19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
Romans 1:19–23 (ESV)
Literal Narrative Argumentation
So to further draw a contrast between figurative poetry and historical narrative, I have outlined here a few notes from theological texts that advocate a historical narrative perspective. Much of it literal while some of it symbolic.
Argument from Statistical Process Analysis Produced and demonstrated to parse and quantify the Hebrew language and its grammatical details about how the Genesis written account is formed and expressed. The form of the written creation account in Hebrew supports a literal historical narrative as compared to a poetic framework.
Argument from Literary Development Author intended written work as reference to real events. Examples produced from customs, ancient names, monuments, pronouncements, historical references, cited sources and records, chronological references, genealogies, prophetic utterances, time anchored words, and historical trajectories.
Argument from Doctrine The doctrine of Scripture requires readers to accept by authorial intent that the Genesis account originated from God. A historical narrative description of real events as revealed by God in Scripture through the author of Genesis. The Bible compels the reader to a belief in the past of actual events as narrated.
Argument from Exegetical Hermeneutics Scholars attempt to show that the Genesis creation account is about the form of the text as if it were akin to a parable. With reference to ANE comparisons, their view is that ancient readers would have never viewed the ancient account as a literal historical account. Contrary to scholars’ view that the text is figurative, in that creation was a formative effort. By contrast and effective exegesis, the Hebrew term בָּרָא for “created” (Gen 1:1), is to bring into existence, or the verb, “bā·rā” according to the Hebrew-Aramaic dictionary.
Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew1343 I. בָּרָא (bā·rā(ʾ)): v.; ≡ Str 1254; TWOT 278—1. LN 42.29–42.40 (qal) create, i.e., make something that has not been in existence before (Ge 1:1); (nif) be created (Ge 2:4); 2. LN 42.29–42.40 make, form or fashion something out of elements that exist (Ge 6:7; Jer 31:22; Is 65:18).
In an effort to produce a running list of differences between the biblical record in Genesis of creation and various Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) accounts, this is a beginning comparison among others to follow if they should arise during the course of study. These are only a small collection of major differences to help dismiss outright ANE mythology as a source of comparative truth as written in Genesis.
The Lord’s Aseity stands separate from the “deities” who were created by Him.
The Lord is assumed in the ANE texts rather than proved or asserted as compared to the origin and function of the gods.
The Lord exists and operates outside His creation whereas the gods were formed of natural forces that assumed a status of divinity.
The Lord is unopposed as compared to deities in ANE myths in conflict.
Earth and heavens formed in Enuma Elish through violence related to goddess Tiamat. Where Genesis explicitly specifies creation’s existence by what the Lord spoke.
Tiamat, the goddess is a character (tĕhôm; תְּהוֹם) of Enuma Elish, whereas the “deep” (tĕhôm; תְּהוֹם) in Genesis 1 refers to the depths of the waters.
Agriculture development by irrigation appears both in Scripture and in ANE myths. Genesis explicitly informs us that irrigation originates from God, while from ANE myths (such as Eridu Genesis) it originates from humanity.
The gods in ANE myths Atrahasis and Eridu Genesis are angered over the noise of the population of those on the Earth. In Genesis, there is no population to produce objectionable noise, but rebellion instead.
The Gilgamesh Epic refers to a snake and a plant submerged in an ocean as the source of eternal life, or immortality. Whereas the Bible informs us that there is no death present with Adam and Eve until after their disobedience.
ANE myth Enuma Elish shows Marduk suspends Tiamat’s body up like the sky. Where upper and lower waters become separated. In Genesis, the waters are divided above and beneath the firmament.
Marduk makes humans from the mud and blood of Tiamat’s monster to serve the gods and bring them comfort.
There are numerous Enuma Elish references to the creation account that have no corresponding relevance or approximate comparative inference.
It is on this resurrection day in the year 2020 that this post is written to rediscover the meaning and relevance of Genesis 1 – 11. Specifically, about the promised seed in Genesis 3:15 that would come to redeem humanity as a result of its rebellion and fall in the Edenic garden of God. Where after the sin of Adam and Eve, God in His infinite wisdom and mercy curses the earth and the enemy to begin a series of the covenant promises to restore creation and proper order for His glory and redemptive purposes. The account in Scripture that begins our journey to recovery through Jesus and by the infinite, yet sufficient grace of God is traced all throughout the Bible. This post is a walkthrough of what occurred after Genesis 3:15 to bring about the lineage of Christ throughout the early covenants.
The Curses and Enmity of God
To set about an understanding of what occurred in the garden of Eden, it is necessary to recognize what YHWH spoke was prophetic to bring about the certainty of what was to occur in the future as a matter of judgment and enmity. As we see in Genesis 3:15, we are given anthropomorphic language to see what is to occur between Satan and the seed of the woman. The verse specifics read as follows (NASB):
After the metaphorical serpent deceived the woman (Eve) that led to the rebellion of both her and her mate (Adam), we are given a full explanation of what took place. The earliest progenitors of humanity consumed a forbidden fruit that would surely bring them death (Gen 2:17) as decreed by God. Upon the contradiction and outright lie of the enemy upon the woman, both she and Adam partook of the fruit of the forbidden tree. They ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to seal their fate.
God’s proclamation of death, curses, and enmity upon recognition of sinful rebellion is an expected consequence that would bring a certain separation between Him and His creation. As it became corrupted, there were necessary outcomes that prompted God to set in motion His condemnation and justice through an adversarial relationship between humanity and spiritual forces of darkness. Namely, the evil that set itself against God and the relationship He formed with humanity to fellowship and dwell with Him. The forthcoming prophetic conflict specifically affected humanity in that as they suffer the consequences of their sin, the seed or offspring of the woman would strike against evil.
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.” – Genesis 3:15
The Meta-Narrative and Formation of Covenants
Structurally, we see an overall dispensational period of covenant intervals throughout Scripture. Across epochs of time, we are gripped in Scripture by how God makes His covenant oaths to fulfill His promises. Both unconditional and conditional, we observe by the Lord’s revealed truth the Adamic covenant preceding the Noahic covenant. Whereas their distinction somewhat rests in the difference between the innocent and blameless nature of God’s people. With the post-diluvian call of Abraham and the Lord’s covenant with him, we encounter the Mosaic covenant and the dispensational period of the Law. To give context to sacrificial offerings and hold some semblance of God’s continued fellowship with the 12-tribes of Israel. The Davidic covenant, as given in 2 Samuel 7:4-17, provides insight into how the seed, as spoken about in Genesis 3:15, also extends through his royal descendants. Specifically, through Solomon as David’s “throne shall be established forever” (2 Sam 7:16).
In continuation of all covenants bestowed from God by His astonishing mercy and wisdom, we read of His new covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:31-37. A new covenant from the words of the prophet Jeremiah was spoken to reveal further yet another promise. Only this time, it is a covenant of salvation that He will bring to restore the right relationship with Him as He will forgive iniquity and remember the sin of His people no more (Jer 31:34). While this new covenant promise was written for the people of Israel, in principle, it applies to those who belong to Him as spoken about by Jesus in Luke 22:20.1
Fulfillment of Covenant Promises
Over the course of history, the lineage of Adam and his wife Eve genealogically led to Noah, who God regarded as blameless in His view (Gen 6:9). As God would eventually destroy all of humanity in the flood of Genesis 7, Noah and his family became singled out to survive and reset the emergence of humanity throughout Mesopotamia and beyond. The formation of the Noahic covenant (Gen 8:20 – 9:17) thereafter involved the replenishment of the earth and the renewal of seasonal cycles.2 As Noah’s sons Shem, Japheth, and Ham gave rise to the table of nations (Genesis 10), separate individual lineages would again run the course of history. As a kernel of hope extended through the descendants of Shem within the biblical narrative, there were continued setbacks that ran counter to God’s plans of redemptive history in an all-out effort to restore humanity. God’s covenant with Noah would further reach toward its fulfillment as a backdrop of what occurs throughout the remainder of Genesis and beyond. Namely, the Abrahamic covenant via Isaac and Jacob to the Davidic covenant that would propagate the seed of Eve in Genesis 3:15 NASB. This seed in Genesis 3:15 NASB narrows to Christ from a plural to a singular sense, who would fulfill God’s judgment on the enemy as our Messianic God in the person of Jesus.
As readers of Scripture, we recognize the progenitors of Noah through the descendants of Terah to include Shem. Namely, a foundation of individuals and families to originate nations and populations of people that grow in size and take up residence throughout the Middle East. As peoples are scattered by language and geological position from the Babel account in Genesis 11:1-9,3 we come upon the life of Abram to set the stage for God’s work throughout early humanity. It was first beginning with His chosen servant Abraham and by the Hebrew people to ultimately all nations of the Earth as promised (Gen 22:18). There are numerous stories within the biblical record that continue to give us circumstances by which God operates among the nations while within the fallen state of humanity. First through the Jews of Israel and then through the Gentiles upon the blessings or fruits of the new covenant established as described by the Apostle Paul (Rom 11:26-27).
Prior to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant concerning the land of Canaan (Deut. 29:1-30:20), we can trace the seed of Adam & Eve, Abraham & Sarah, to David & Bathsheba along 14 generations thereafter and validate the royal lineage of Christ (Matt 1:6-17).4 To conclude with His arrival and intent to ultimately bruise the head of the serpent by His death, resurrection, ascension, coronation, and forthcoming permanent defeat of Satan. Meanwhile, to place a New Testament capstone on God’s redemptive work, we read in Luke 22:20 that Jesus offers His blood of the new covenant. This by which YHWH speaks through the prophet Jeremiah to give certainty our iniquity and sins will be forgiven and remembered no more.
Conclusion
From creation, the fall of man, and to the flood that destroyed all of humanity except Noah and his family, the pre-patriarchal period of Genesis 1 – 11 sets the stage for scattered nations propelled throughout the Earth for thousands of years. Pivotal to this early period of formative history, Genesis 3:15 explicitly identifies the seed of Adam & Eve as carrying a redemptive purpose as a corrective and restorative action that returns creation and humanity to God’s originally intended purpose. Across numerous covenants from Adam to Christ, we have full biblical recognition of God’s mercy and wisdom beyond understanding. He has given our patriarchal and spiritual forefathers the resources, blessings, and offspring to return to Him in fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-37.
Citations
1. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition, (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2019), 990. 2. The Noahic Covenant. Ligonier Ministries Table Talk.https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/noahic-covenant-1670/ (accessed April 11th, 2020). 3. Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm, The Tower of Babel (Bellingham, Lexham Press, 2015), 112-113. 4. T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land, An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 3rd Edition (Grand Rapids, Baker Publishing Group, 2012), 144.
Bibliography
MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Study Bible – 2nd Edition. Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2019. Sproul, R.C. The Noahic Covenant – Ligonier Ministries Tabletalk Magazine. Ligonier Pennsylvania. Heiser, Michael. The Unseen Realm – 1st Edition. Bellingham, Lexham Press, 2015. Alexander, Desmond T. From Paradise to the Promised Land. – 3rd Edition, Grand Rapids, Baker Publishing Group, 2012.
Before reading hundreds of pages in this book, “Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth,” it became clear this is a compilation work of numerous authors. Work as either written for this book or by incorporation from earlier papers written. Authors each highly distinct as scholars within their view of Genesis. From linguistics to theological exploration of meaning within the first book of Moses, the entirety of the work appears to begin or operate from the worldview of Henry M. Morris. Morris was an American young-Earth creationist and engineer who co-founded the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research.
Some of the chapters were written after the passing of Morris in 2006, but all authors support a literal and historical interpretation of the book of Genesis. Along with Morris’s influence and recognition of the entire body of thought, John MacArthur also supports the material with small equivocations. Nonetheless, MacArthur makes clear his criticism of naturalism and presuppositions to bring attention to the validity of all Scriptural miracles, including Christ’s resurrection. To set into a further view that Morris, MacArthur, and the authors of this book are young-earth creationists with a literal and historical narrative interpretation of Genesis. To include the timeline of creation events, the formation and fall of humanity, Adam and Eve, a global flood, and a denial of theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism).
In this book, periodic attention is placed upon the mechanics and the grammatical use of ancient Hebrew to build a continuity of rationale about a literal Genesis interpretation. As compared to a poetic and figurative view advocated by numerous others today, and especially among liberal scholars. It is clear that the depth of research and citations offer evidence for the conclusions they draw about the various literal interpretations of authors among the many chapters.
The perspective of authors goes quite far to offer coherent support for the English rendering of terms, phrases, and clauses given in the biblical narrative of creation and early historical events spanning a relatively short period of time. Various authors also engage the objections to the traditional view of literal interpretation. With particular attention to various mythical Ancient Near East (ANE) comparisons to the biblical account of creation. With substantial effort and meticulous attention to detail, point-by-point comparisons from source material get stripped away and dismissed without viable credibility. Nonetheless, historical and modern ANE comparisons inform today’s Bible readers what postdiluvian authors of Scripture recognized from lore among social beliefs.
My time here in the book centers around various theories concerning creation timelines, methods of interpretation, and literal vs. figurative theological positions. So it serves as a technical reference handbook of sorts from the historical narrative record of Genesis. So during the course of my efforts of reading and study this far, I have poured into the topics of historical backgrounds, deep time, genre, geology time-scale, earth age interpretations, Noah’s flood (local vs global), genealogies, and various additional theories about what is presented throughout early Genesis.
I drank from the deep fountain of possibility to know clearly what I have not firmly understood. To take a position and settle upon anything to conclude what the intricate meta details were in Scripture. I have an intuition and sense about how historical events played out, but I am barely aware enough to recognize how erroneous my conclusions can become. I need help from the Spirit within to understand and discern among academic, scholarly, or opinionated advocates either way.
From careful reading to get the exact positions from the various arguments of a literal and historical young earth view, my time in this work was so far sort of introductory to figure things out. To understand what is coherent to believe from Truth as revealed by what God intended through direct revelation among original ancient manuscripts. To provide a backdrop of what both traditional and liberal academics and theologians surmise about what occurred at the beginning of humanity’s existence. I want to see the error and the right way to think and understand the specifics. So all chapters of this book together represent a composite whole of disparate work. As there doesn’t appear to be an overlapping or integrated feel to the separate chapters, together they provide a comprehensive yet separate free-standing series of coherent perspectives of Genesis 1 through 11; the pre-patriarchal period of the Bible. It is an uneasy beginning, but a way forward nonetheless.
The value of the book is justified by the citations and bibliography alone. The book is published by Master Books. The authors throughout this book include:
William D. Barrick (M.Div., San Francisco Baptist Theological Seminary), Todd Beall (Th.M Capital Bible Seminary), Steven W. Boyd (Dallas Theological Seminary), Trevor Craigen (Th.D., Grace Theological Seminary), Travis R. Freeman (M.Div., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), David W. Hall (M.Div., Covenant Theological Seminary), Richard Mayhue (M.Div. Grace Theological Seminary), Robert V. McCabe (M.Div. Temple Baptist Theological Seminary), Ron Minton (M.Div. Grace Theological Seminary), James R. Mook (Th.D Dallas Theological Seminary), Terry Mortenson (M.Div. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), Paul J. Scharf (M.Div. Faith Baptist Theological Seminary), James Stambaugh (M.Div. Grace Theological Seminary), and Thane H. Ury (M.Div. Asbury Theological Seminary).
Within this post, various perspectives and theories about creation methodologies, backgrounds, and speculations become considered for comparative purposes. To understand their weight, meaning, and purpose to understand the specifics about the origins of existence and how humanity came to be. The creation accounts given in Scripture provide for a corroborated view about what our Lord and Creator accomplished. However, still today, many scholars, students, and laity more fully explore the wonders of this Universe and all that is within it. To include a deep and extended search of the Scriptures to understand the Truth of God’s work better.
Introduction
Individuals and organizations go about their reading and interpretation of Scripture from a range of approaches. Yet reliable hermeneutical practices yield more effective exegetical outcomes that draw from the intended meaning of biblical authors—setting aside Western, or post-modern social influences and pressures to develop a precise understanding of what occurred to bring about the reality around us. There is a range of theories that constitute the body of rationale concerning the text we see in Genesis 1:1-3. Among these, they are generally placed into two camps of interpretation to get at the Lord’s meaning in Genesis. Namely, literal or figurative interpretations, either historical and chronological or topical.
Theories of Creation
All together in view, there are Concordist (literal) and Non-concordist (nonliteral) interpretations1 grouped where both views recognize and affirm the inspiration and authority of God’s word. Still, the method by which creation is accomplished and recorded varies significantly. One group of interpretations is chronological, where the other is not—the paradigm centers around what was either time-bound or functional. More specifically, a time-bound interpretation that comes from modern or Western cultural worldviews that place considerable weight upon how a reader of the creation account in Genesis would understand and accept the origination and formation of the Universe and the Earth in a sequentially ordered manner. By comparison, numerous evangelicals, theologians, and biblical scholars today place increasing attention upon what people of the Ancient Near East (ANE) region have read and understood concerning their interpretation of the creation account within Genesis.
On the one hand, we recognize that the shape and extent of the Earth were limited from a more primitive worldview among ancient peoples throughout earlier centuries. Their view of Scripture was largely shaped by divine revelation, cultural conditions, and likely what they heard through oral tradition. On the other hand, there are today scientific observations about glacial layering, global plate tectonics, archaeological discoveries, and the rates of decay, or transformation of physical matter, that have a bearing upon those who have a high view of Scripture and hold a creationist worldview. Just as we today have cultural influences upon our society, there were cultural, social, political, and religious influences present among peoples throughout the Ancient Near East. Consequently, questions that inevitably arise about a chronological and formative vs functional view of Scripture bring about new interest concerning what people read, wrote, heard, practiced, worshiped, and believed throughout their lives. To add cultural context in how they understood the recorded account of creation as written about in Genesis.
From the sequence of events in Genesis 1, we have the following chronological and formative creation theories cast in place. Young Earth theory (24-Hour Day), Old Earth theory, Day-Age theory, and Gap theory are all today’s interpretive perspectives about a sequence of time that corresponds to the historical narrative given in Genesis. The distinctions among them concern intervals of time that occurred during each day of creation as compared to what duration of time transpired between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and then Genesis 1:3. The concern and interest are not merely about the consecutive nature of the period described in the biblical text and the use of the vav consecutive within Hebrew grammar. They were also about what time lapsed from a human and divine perspective. Either in a linear or nonlinear fashion, whether 24-hours, or as ages in time, the interval duration of each period expressed as a “day” corresponds to a literal day, or a way to assign a formative, or functional term to a time-segment whether intended as chronological or not.
Entirely separate from this type of interpretation is a nonchronological point of view around a literary and topical model to construct meaning. About how existence came into being with processes that were not a result of linear work but were instead by individual and separate periods brought together to complement one another to accommodate the gradual introduction of climate and environmental features such as oceans, forests, mountains, rivers, and so forth. The flora, fauna, and animal life forms that followed further occupied areas of the Earth to perform a specific purpose or function. The literary framework method of creation posits a symmetrical form of order that explains and accommodates the method and means by which all things came to be from a naturalistic and humanly discernable perspective. According to humanity, created beings who are participants among that which was formed and set into being.
Positions & Implications
Theistic Evolution
This is a theory that posits God used evolution as a means to bring about the gradual formation and biological advancement of humanity and physical life.2 Where it is also recognized that an initial miraculous event was necessary to begin the process of evolution, the Theistic Evolution perspective takes into account a supernatural cause from a specific Being outside of creation itself. A seemingly “set and forget” way of casting creation into a perpetual motion of existence contradicting Scripture in the following verse: “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” (Col 1:16-17).
Day-Age
The theory is which each consecutive day itself is an epoch of time or multiples of long geological periods of various durations. Separated by markers in time consecutive in definition by evening and morning markers in the text of Scripture. Advocates of this theory view creation as a convergence of active and passive developmental conditions in the Universe, upon Earth, and among humanity.3 A theory that early Earth apologists generally oppose on the grounds of presuppositional thinking, with a uniformitarian, and anti-supernatural worldview. As a point of comparison, Hebrews 4:5-10 informs us that the Lord is still in the Sabbath of the seventh day He created. As the seventh day was created longer than 24-hours ago, one could conclude a similarly extended period of time (“days”) prior to the Sabbath while according to a providential or God-centered time-frame reference.
24-Hour Day
On the plain meaning of Scripture, to understand what God has revealed in His word, each day described in Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, and 1:31 is a literal 24-hour solar period. An interval of time that normally represents one complete rotation of the Earth around the illuminating heat source of the Sun. While the Earth was created and conditioned to support life, it was supernaturally formed into being by God’s spoken word that took a short duration of time from a human point of reference. The lapse of time as a “day,” or 24-hours as described in Scripture to conveys a tangible sense of time passage whether there was the presence of the Sun or the rotational motion of the Earth or not.
Gap Theory
Described as 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. Yet without exegetical support throughout Scripture, Gap theorists advocate the idea that millions of years of time transpired before setting the stage of what was written about in Genesis 1:3.4 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.
Literary Framework
The
literary framework 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.5
This is a poetic or
thematic approach to the literary structure to give a sense of how Creation
came into existence. Where each day is given a function, or purpose, to set in
order as necessary and give coherent meaning in each day’s relationship to one
another. This is not a historical expression to explain what occurred, but
instead a way to view the functional order by which creation is recognized as a
similar formative comparison to Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) mythology.
Revelatory Days
Alternative to 24 actual solar hours of the day to create everything, some scholars view these periods as days of revelation. Where it took a literal solar week to reveal what He did ages before humanity was created, this point of view interpretation comes through the use of the word “made” (asah) in Exodus 20:11 because the terminology can reference the meaning of “revealed.” The distinction here rests on the theory that could have God taken 144 hours (a solar week) to reveal a past series of events. Scripture to support this theory comes from Genesis 5:1, 6:9, and 10:1. Defined as the histories or literally “genealogies” of the creation account, this theory is a view back at what occurred with it, taking a literal week for God to reveal to Adam and Moses the order of events.
Conclusion
With numerous theories concerning biblical creation events in Genesis, there are several here touched upon to give a limited depth about the range of interpretations that exist. Not to bring confusion or misunderstanding about what occurred as described in Scripture, but to instead instill confidence in the authority and reliable certainty of what God accomplished. The discussion is merely about a methodology that is either chronological and functional, or historically formative concerning the origin of existence. There either is a literal or figurative occurrence as an interpretive way to explain to Bible readers what took place in either a narrative or poetic format.
As it is upon each individual to grasp the intended meaning of what is revealed by God through the writing of Moses, we are left with a decision about what to accept as original revelatory truth. To get at this truth from a Scriptural perspective, it is necessary to recognize it as the inerrant and prevailing Word of God. While I previously held to the Day-Age view of Creation, through this cursory study, I have withdrawn from that perspective, and I have tentatively moved to a literal day-length interpretation but with the age of the Earth extending back to much longer than 4,000 to 6,000 years ago. The primary reason for this change is due to the far greater likelihood God is active at formative Creation as a creative effort instead of what the scientific method necessitates through the natural order. A secondary reason for the change is related to the Hebrew grammatical structure of the text making use of the vav (waw) consecutive to indicate the sequence of events given by linguistic expression. While this does not alleviate concerns about the duration of time-lapse day intervals from a Day-Age perspective, it does reduce the likelihood of a poetic and figurative way of interpretation. Moreover, the Bible itself gives a plain reading of the “evening and morning” transition or interface of the text from one literal translated day to another.
Again, subject to further adjustment, as I learn more through the pursuit of theological groundwork, research, personal study, prayer, and guidance, my view here is likely to increase in precision as I get close to the true and intended meaning of Scripture in this area. I have several areas of unattended concerns, and further information is necessary to settle upon a position at this point. Meanwhile, the historical narrative to indicate a literal interpretation of 24-hour days upon the Creation of the Earth many millennia ago is where I newly begin from.
Citations
1. Haarsma & Haarsma, Origins. Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, (Grand Rapids, Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2011), 97, 129. 2. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1999), 233. 3. Ibid. 270, 271. 4. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2000), 289 5. Terry Mortenson, Coming to Grips with Genesis, (Green Forest, AR, Master Books, 2018), 212.
Bibliography
Deborah B. Haarsma, Loren D. Haarsma. Origins – Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2011. Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology -An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Mortenson, Terry. Coming to Grips with Genesis. Green Forest: Master Books, 2018.
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.
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
The Holy Bible: King James Version. (2009). (Ge 1:26–28).
When Jesus commands us to love others, it had not occurred to me the reasons why. Not necessarily for their merit, work, or status per se. It is because they bear the image of God. People are a visual expression by an “appearance” in what God looks like, and how He operates or functions since the Most-High is Spirit and not in anthropomorphic form. Therefore, we love them as God’s imprint on creation and flesh made over the generations.
Love God, above all, with everything you’ve got. Love others as they are loved by God. Love them well because they are among creation and bear God’s likeness. By following this line of understanding and rationale, it is far easier to demonstrate and place thoughts of love upon others as people groups and as individuals. Even while there might be a full denial of God’s existence and rightful place in their lives. Even if they who reject YHWH as enemies, accusers, and those who are due forgiveness.
A man of God, who questions his creator. Job asked God why he paid enough attention to him to harm him. When it just wasn’t so. God allowed an Enemy to bring harm to Job (Job 1:8–12).
Affliction
“Remember that my life is but breath; My eye will not again see good. “The eye of him who sees me will behold me no longer; Your eyes will be on me, but I will not be.
“When a cloud vanishes, it is gone, So he who goes down to Sheol does not come up. “He will not return again to his house, Nor will his place know him anymore.
“Therefore I will not restrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.
“Am I the sea, or the sea monster, That You set a guard over me? “If I say, ‘My bed will comfort me, My couch will ease my complaint,’ Then You frighten me with dreams And terrify me by visions; So that my soul would choose suffocation, Death rather than my pains.
“I waste away; I will not live forever. Leave me alone, for my days are but a breath.
“What is man that You magnify him, And that You are concerned about him, That You examine him every morning And try him every moment?
“Will You never turn Your gaze away from me, Nor let me alone until I swallow my spittle? “Have I sinned? What have I done to You, O watcher of men?
Why have You set me as Your target, So that I am a burden to myself?
“Why then do You not pardon my transgression And take away my iniquity? For now I will lie down in the dust; And You will seek me, but I will not be.”
New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Job 7:7–21). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
I’ve been spending a lot of time with astronomy and topics surrounding theoretical physics. So I got to thinking. Is it possible that the creation event wasn’t a one-time occurrence? That it continues on as driven within the framework of energy and matter?
As open and closed types of string forces move in and out of existence from other dimensions, they’re driven by a type of source that has remained in perpetuity. Meaning, there is a constant or eternal source independent of time in order for matter and energy to remain together or structured as they are.
Universal objects which took millions of light-years to get to here are a completely different time reference which no longer exist as they were. Atoms with components that orbit a central nucleus are of the same type of model as galaxies and solar systems (i.e. quantum & universal). Relatively speaking, the scale between the two is immense, but with a design that is roughly common.
As the universe continues to expand, it accelerates. However, from a point of reference that originates energy and matter, its position still relatively insignificant as compared to other dimensions that exist also.
What God put into existence has a natural and ongoing bearing on how we understand reality is formed. I suspect that what’s behind Strings in other dimensions is God’s eternal intent that sets and keeps particles we measure in place regardless of scale. The difference between the physical, the spirit and the soul for example. Speculatively, as all reside as one within a range of moment slices (time), but two are eternal (i.e. independent of time) and not subject to decay or entropy as that which is within space and time.
When God ‘spoke’ creation into existence (to speak implies a physical effort), it wasn’t a one-time occurrence that lasts. What was spoken is still spoken and continues to propagate as that source of energy or spirit. Not as God spoke (past-tense), but that I AM’s spoken creation is sustained from a ‘place’ of continued tense independent of time. From our perspective, we are still in ‘day’ 5 of the creation narrative as given in Genesis.
Could it be that where the tripartite spirit, soul, and body exists in a more pertinent reality as compared to our physical being? We live among counter-parts of ourselves which we can’t see. Much like what energy source exists that serves as the structure behind strings that reach into other dimensions.
For some reason, I’ve been spending quite a bit of time in and out of astronomy and NASA applications, texts and videos. Several of the sort on the iPad, Android, and desktop. Remember, the posts some while back about the Higgs-Boson (God Particle) discovery?
And now just more recently Brian Greene’s Q&A at some notable gathering. Something in passing mentioned to negate any type or kind ‘beginning’ as a theory. That the Universe maybe doesn’t exist with an ending as entropy requires. Where time no longer exists ‘thereafter’, but ‘ever-after’. That time exists not as causal, but in continuity without beginning and without end. A sort of a shadow of eternity, but in a physical form of sorts with just a few dimensions. That we know about at least.
“Let Us make mankind in our image” (Gen 1:26). It is perhaps as to say, “let us make the Universe as our Kingdom or realm”. Or is it to assume the separation an invalid proposition? That we exist as a subset of something ‘more’, different, better. I really dislike the word ‘huge’ as a way to express better or added significance.
More locally, NASA is working on a large-scale entry vehicle to place people on Mars. Tests are being carried out to accomplish that landing. A sort of effort (feat) to demonstrate utter defiance. To explore the surface of a place wiped of life, but an endeavor very much worth our while. To see if life existed there before. Which is really the question and the point of going. Our tower of Babel.
This morning in the shower again the wonder was there about the nature of beings that exist elsewhere. Something inside says ‘they’re’ there (plural), but not as life necessarily as one may expect. Questions about the presence of good and evil, or is it just us? Is it just our story or meaning?
This afternoon during a walk (and yesterday) I’ve been giving too much thought on CME and the idea of a microplasma wave and how to replicate it and put it into practical use.
