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.
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, whereas 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 to 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
1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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 convey a tangible sense of time passage whether there was the presence of the Sun or the rotational motion of the Earth or not.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 took 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.
