# Modified Gap Theory



## Peairtach

The first verse of Genesis says that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and we are not told how He did that miracle, nor how long the heavens and the earth were in existence before He started work on them on the First Day. Is such a (modified) Gap Theory feasible from the text of Genesis Chapter One?


----------



## Jake

I have never thought about this, but it does make sense. This would give time for the fall of Satan from heaven (Luke 10:18) which would have had to happen before the temptation of man, making a more realistic time frame. 

However, any gaps after the first day are not in line with Biblical teaching.


----------



## Denton Elliott

I disagree, I think any gaps would be eisogesis and merely a result of trying to get man's "science" into the Text.


----------



## Jake

Denton Elliott said:


> I disagree, I think any gaps would be eisogesis and merely a result of trying to get man's "science" into the Text.




That was my initial thought, but there is no way that I see that a gap between the formless and void earth and the creation of light supports "science" or creates any sort of cohesion between common theories and the Bible. The gap theory in general, definitely, but not necessarily this.


----------



## Denton Elliott

What I mean is if you never heard of modern "science", you would never read Genesis 1 and think, "millions of years ago"... Especially not between the first verse and the first day of creation.


----------



## Jake

Denton Elliott said:


> What I mean is if you never heard of modern "science", you would never read Genesis 1 and think, "millions of years ago"... Especially not between the first verse and the first day of creation.



My point is (note that I am just now thinking this through) that by Genesis 3 Satan has already fallen (meaning the angels were created). Genesis 3 is the next event after the creation of woman on the 6th day (Gen 1:27). We don't know how much time passed between Genesis 2 and 3, as the next event we have a time for is the birth of Seth when Adam was 130. Seth was a "replacement" for Cain (Gen 5:25), but by this time there were already enough people for there to be other lands, such as Nod where Cain went (Gen 4:16). 

All this is to say that I think it is reasonable for the fall to have been fairly soon after the initial creation, and Satan would have already had to have fallen from heaven first. I am not saying its million years or basing it on current "scientific" ideas of the age of the Earth, but simply saying it would make sense for Satan to have fallen before the creation process or the creation of man. Otherwise, we have Satan falling quite quickly from heaven after the creation of the angels. This isn't impossible or anything though.


----------



## ZackF

Denton Elliott said:


> What I mean is if you never heard of modern "science", you would never read Genesis 1 and think, "millions of years ago"... Especially not between the first verse and the first day of creation.



I'm more of a "billions of years" kind of guy but I wouldn't have thought about "millions" at all either about anything (cells in the body, people on earth, fish in the sea, whatever) during antiquity. The expression of "millions" to describe quantity in any context, scientific or otherwise, is new. It was uncommon before the twentieth century and virtually non-existent before modernity.


----------



## VictorBravo

KS_Presby said:


> Denton Elliott said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is if you never heard of modern "science", you would never read Genesis 1 and think, "millions of years ago"... Especially not between the first verse and the first day of creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more of a "billions of years" kind of guy but I wouldn't have thought about "millions" at all either about anything (cells in the body, people on earth, fish in the sea, whatever) during antiquity. The expression of "millions" to describe quantity in any context, scientific or otherwise, is new. It was uncommon before the twentieth century and virtually non-existent before modernity.
Click to expand...


Maybe they didn't use the term "million," but I'm quite certain the Ancient Hebrews were comfortable with understanding large numbers, and multiples of large numbers. The Hebrew translated as "millions" in Gen. 24:60 implies multiples of large numbers, and, of course, Revelation deals with the concept straight out:



> Gen 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.





> Rev 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.



Regardless of view, it is fairly obvious that the ancient languages were quite capable of expressing very large numbers. It's not a fault of Hebrew that Gen. 1 doesn't say "thousands of millions of years passed, and then day one."


----------



## ZackF

victorbravo said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denton Elliott said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is if you never heard of modern "science", you would never read Genesis 1 and think, "millions of years ago"... Especially not between the first verse and the first day of creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more of a "billions of years" kind of guy but I wouldn't have thought about "millions" at all either about anything (cells in the body, people on earth, fish in the sea, whatever) during antiquity. The expression of "millions" to describe quantity in any context, scientific or otherwise, is new. It was uncommon before the twentieth century and virtually non-existent before modernity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe they didn't use the term "million," but I'm quite certain the Ancient Hebrews were comfortable with understanding large numbers, and multiples of large numbers. The Hebrew translated as "millions" in Gen. 24:60 implies multiples of large numbers, and, of course, Revelation deals with the concept straight out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of view, it is fairly obvious that the ancient languages were quite capable of expressing very large numbers. It's not a fault of Hebrew that Gen. 1 doesn't say "thousands of millions of years passed, and then day one."
Click to expand...


As you posted, I was sending this PM to an inquiry about theistic evolution. The gist was about numbers.

*"My post about large quantification was suppose to be specific about that only. The way we abstract (or attemt to) large sums wouldn't translate to ancient man very well. Time sort of just ran together. It was either recent or distant to him. Ask yourself how you would describe an event that took place at a precise date between 10000 BC and 3000 BC to an ancient person? What about 100000 BC and 2000 BC? Ancient people were not stupid but they had not the categories in common use yet to understand and abstract a huge number of years as we do even though they had systems to create them. We understand that there are trillions of cells in the body? However, even with the primitive atomic theories the ancient Greeks had, trying getting such a concept across to them in casual conversation would have been just plain weird?

Re: The mode of Creation..at the end of the day (no pun intended)...I don't know. I lean towards theistic evolution but I just don't know for reasons more godly and knowledgable men have demonstrated. That is why I don't post much on YEC/OEC threads unless I have a specific point that is important to consider. In the coming months I'll post more on the subject but I think you will find a dialogue unsatisfying at this time. "*


----------



## toddpedlar

Jake said:


> Denton Elliott said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is if you never heard of modern "science", you would never read Genesis 1 and think, "millions of years ago"... Especially not between the first verse and the first day of creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is (note that I am just now thinking this through) that by Genesis 3 Satan has already fallen (meaning the angels were created). Genesis 3 is the next event after the creation of woman on the 6th day (Gen 1:27). We don't know how much time passed between Genesis 2 and 3, as the next event we have a time for is the birth of Seth when Adam was 130. Seth was a "replacement" for Cain (Gen 5:25), but by this time there were already enough people for there to be other lands, such as Nod where Cain went (Gen 4:16).
> 
> All this is to say that I think it is reasonable for the fall to have been fairly soon after the initial creation, and Satan would have already had to have fallen from heaven first. I am not saying its million years or basing it on current "scientific" ideas of the age of the Earth, but simply saying it would make sense for Satan to have fallen before the creation process or the creation of man. Otherwise, we have Satan falling quite quickly from heaven after the creation of the angels. This isn't impossible or anything though.
Click to expand...



On what day do you think the angels were created? We're not told, but are you really of the impression that if they were created, say, on day 1 (remember that they shouted for joy at the foundation of the Earth according to Job 38), it would have been impossible for Satan to have let his pride get the best of him and lead a revolt before man's creation? I don't see ANY reason stemming from the need for a time for the angels to fall for anything beyond the six days we're told about.


----------



## Denton Elliott

toddpedlar said:


> On what day do you think the angels were created? We're not told, but are you really of the impression that if they were created, say, on day 1 (remember that they shouted for joy at the foundation of the Earth according to Job 38), it would have been impossible for Satan to have let his pride get the best of him and lead a revolt before man's creation? I don't see ANY reason stemming from the need for a time for the angels to fall for anything beyond the six days we're told about.



Yes I believe Satan probably fell very soon after he was created.


Theistic Evolution creates theological problems as it puts death, pain, and suffering before the fall of Adam. Also, outside of man's fallible science, there is no reason to believe in an old (millions of years or more) earth. Observations in science and the Bible actually fit better in the confines of a young earth (thousands of years old).


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Joshua*
_It is purely eisogesis. Genesis 1:1 is saying God did this biggggg thing. Then in verse 2, begins the story of "how" he did the bigggggggg thing. _

But we're not told on what day God created this ball on which we're situated on which was totally covered in water, and what day the heavens themselves were created. And of course there is no (other) mention of the creation of God's heaven itself and angels in Genesis 1. If this planet itself and the heavens themselves were created on Day One, why does it not say so?

Each of the creative days begins with ''and God said'' and Day One's account doesn't start until verse 3. Is it possible that verses 1 and 2 indicate that the heavens and earth were created an indeterminate time (short or long) before Day One started?

I very much believe that the Days of Creation are of ordinary length because that ties in much better with the rest of the Bible and is more theologically acceptable.

I don't want man's science in the text.

*Quote from Todd Pedlar*
_I don't see ANY reason stemming from the need for a time for the angels to fall for anything beyond the six days we're told about. _

There's also the problem of time in heaven and time on earth; I would think that all finite creatures are subject to time in some sense, but how earth time and heaven time relate is a mystery.


----------



## Peairtach

Joshua said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this planet itself and the heavens themselves were created on Day One, why does it not say so?
> 
> Each of the creative days begins with ''and God said'' and Day One's account doesn't start until verse 3. Is it possible that verses 1 and 2 indicate that the heavens and earth were created an indeterminate time (short or long) before Day One started?
> 
> 
> 
> It is an argument from _silence_ and, contextually, it's eisogesis to _assume_ that there's a gap between verse 1 and 2. So I'll ask a question, similar to yours, if this planet itself and the heavens were created, then there was a large gap of time between this and the 6 Days of Creation, why does it not say so?
Click to expand...


I'm just pointing out that in Genesis One we are not told the day on which the earth itself and and the heavens themselves were created. If they were created on Day One that is not stated. If they were not created on Day One, they must have been created (a short or long time) before Day One.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Joshua*
_They were created over the course of 6 days. So, as noted earlier, it's like an essay:

1. Intro - God made the Heavens and the Earth.
2. Body - All the following things (how, what, He did, etc.)
3. See, this is how God made Heavens and Earth, then He rested. _

Well it's an essay in which we are told that God filled and formed the unfilled and unformed heavens and earth from days 1 to 6, but we are not told that he created the unformed and unfilled heavens and earth on any of these days. A literary approach to Genesis One is fine as long as what is said there is not compromised.

If the heavenly time is in synchronicity with earth time, according to this scheme the heavens and earth - including God's heaven and the angels could be created some time before Day One and there would be time for the angelic rebellion.

It would be appropriate that the unformed and unfilled earth be made ready to be worked upon at the same time as God's heaven and the angels, because in a real sense the earth is more central to God's great plan than heaven, as from eternity God the Son wanted to become a man and die for the sons of men, whereas He did not want to become an angel or die for fallen angels. He didn't create the earth as an "afterthought" to heaven and the angels.

_Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. _(Proverbs 8:30-31, KJV).


----------



## Skyler

Richard Tallach said:


> The first verse of Genesis says that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and we are not told how He did that miracle, nor how long the heavens and the earth were in existence before He started work on them on the First Day. Is such a (modified) Gap Theory feasible from the text of Genesis Chapter One?



Keep in mind also that if Humphrey's white hole model in particular and Einstein's theory of relativity in general are correct, time would have probably traveled at different rates in different sections of the universe--so you have thousands, possibly millions, of years elapsing in far-off regions of the universe while only hours or days are passing on Earth. It kind of makes these kind of ruminations a tad bit more complicated.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Skyler *
_It kind of makes these kind of ruminations a tad bit more complicated_

True enough. If we take the Days as literal 24-hour periods as I do, then we should take the period the earth was sitting there before the creation week as a literal period of time (short or long).

The relative relationship between heavenly and earthly time is speculative, but if they are meant to be taken as synchronous I posit the above scenario.

E.g. at the Cross, Resurrection, Ascenscion, Pentecost and the Destruction of Jerusalem I believe we are meant to believe that things happened in heaven that corresponded to what was happening on earth, pointing to synchronicity of some kind. At our justification something happened in heaven when something corresponding happened on earth.


----------



## Hippo

Denton Elliott said:


> I disagree, I think any gaps would be eisogesis and merely a result of trying to get man's "science" into the Text.



There is absolutely nothing wrong in undertanding scripture in light of regenerated reason and observation, who knows the Sun may not actually revolve around the Earth.


----------



## Skyler

Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Skyler *
> _It kind of makes these kind of ruminations a tad bit more complicated_
> 
> True enough. If we take the Days as literal 24-hour periods as I do, then we should take the period the earth was sitting there before the creation week as a literal period of time (short or long).
> 
> The relative relationship between heavenly and earthly time is speculative, but if they are meant to be taken as synchronous I posit the above scenario.
> 
> E.g. at the Cross, Resurrection, Ascenscion, Pentecost and the Destruction of Jerusalem I believe we are meant to believe that things happened in heaven that corresponded to what was happening on earth, pointing to synchronicity of some kind. At our justification something happened in heaven when something corresponding happened on earth.



I agree. I think that "time" was created in the beginning, and that the angels were created in time, just like everything else. What I'm not sure about is how their "time" corresponds to our "time"--if it's faster, slower, etc. I don't think we're told. And, speculation is something which I personally prefer to keep out of theology, because I don't think it really adds anything to the discussion. Fiction is one thing, but theology is something else entirely.


----------



## Peairtach

Fair enough. But my main point stands; it doesn't seem that Genesis one teaches that the unformed and unfilled Earth was created on one of the Six Days.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Denton Elliott said:


> I disagree, I think any gaps would be eisogesis and merely a result of trying to get man's "science" into the Text.



The only problem I see with your statement is that it presumes that the book of God's work cannot shed light on the book of God's word. All revelation of truth is God's revelation of truth, and he cannot contradict himself in any way. We no longer hold to a flat earth because we have proven the earth is mostly spherical. We don't hold to a geocentric solar system because we have shown (if by nothing else, the fact that sending Voyager out followed the rules for a heliocentric solar system). If we find our view of scripture contradicted by what we see in the world around us, we could be mistaken in either realm. While we look to the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth, we are not so perfect (and pig headed) that we can ignore what his leading is.

So if we find something out of accord between the book of God's word and the book of God's work, then we are duty bound to find the most reasonable reconciliation between the two. There are those that hold to a geocentric, flat earth ... but I find those premises incapable of being supported, and certainly any "test" devised to prove them would fail. Blinding ourselves to the revelation of God in the created universe is not wise. Questioning our view of scripture because we see a problem with it from revealed truth in the world around us is in fact wise. That does not mean that we look at what secular science says and question the Bible ... secular science rejects anything but mechanistic explanations for everything. What it does mean is that we cannot dismiss something as irrelevant just because it is discovered in the world around us.

I personally don't hold to a gap theory. (I hold to a framework view, because of the text itself ... it is a much richer and clearer view of the text itself than a straight chronology, and the 4th day is explained much clearer with a framework.) But your statement is an attempt to judge the heart ... rather than give honest investigation to those that are attempting to find the truth, you state "merely" as a minimizing of the theory based on what I think is a false presumption that the creation should not inform our study of the scriptures, even as our study of scriptures should inform our study of creation. Because it is not possible for there to be a contradiction between scripture and creation, our study of either can lead us to question our interpretation of the other.

Just as the scientific method flowed out of the reformation principles of heurmeneutics (simple rules for interpretation that when followed will lead, for the most part, anyone to the same conclusions ... "the interpretation of scripture is one") we cannot ignore those that look at a simple interpretation that needs not use conjecture to explain either the text itself, or the revelation of God in creation. While we must use scripture to interpret scripture, we cannot do so in a vacuum. The church has egg on its face from condemnation of Galileo ... we should not be blind to any truths we see, and we need not fear anything discovered by looking at the universe which God created. Secularists should not be the ones discovering the universe, we should. If we examine our view of both the world and the word and find them in agreement, we can be more sure of the interpretaton of both. (Not that there is *anything* wrong with the revelation in either, but that we have not made an error in either.)


----------



## Brian Withnell

Joshua said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this planet itself and the heavens themselves were created on Day One, why does it not say so?
> 
> Each of the creative days begins with ''and God said'' and Day One's account doesn't start until verse 3. Is it possible that verses 1 and 2 indicate that the heavens and earth were created an indeterminate time (short or long) before Day One started?
> 
> 
> 
> It is an argument from _silence_ and, contextually, it's eisogesis to _assume_ that there's a gap between verse 1 and 2. So I'll ask a question, similar to yours, if this planet itself and the heavens were created, then there was a large gap of time between this and the 6 Days of Creation, why does it not say so?
Click to expand...


The real issue is why does it say what it says. The problem with those that want Gen 1 to speak to the methodology of creation have to deal with the fact that there are inconsistencies in the account itself (day 4 is the creation of days). The better question to ask is does Gen 1 speak to the methods or chronology of creation at all ... in other words, what is God's purpose in communicating what Gen 1 says. If we don't know what God was attempting to communicate, we have no hope of understanding if the communication was "scientific/literal" or if it is more figurative.

I see absolutely no reason for God to be giving us an account of the chronology of creation. I see a great deal of interest in fitting what is revealed into a statement of "God created" and also of "formed" and "filled" in the account itself. The parallel is obvious ... the conjecture that God just happened to create in that order I believe is done as eisogesis rather than exogesis for some. The holding onto traditional interpretation of six literal days and then using that as a "Shibboleth" of orthodoxy seems to me counter productive, as it creates a situation in which something is held without question divides needlessly, and ultimately does not allow for honest investigation.

Is it possible that the Jews had the idea of the coming of the Messiah wrong after over a thousand years of looking for a king that would conquer their enemies? If they could get it wrong, we are no wiser or more holy than they. We could just as easily get wrong something of far lesser consequence (whether the six days are 144 hours or something totally different has little to do with salvation, and getting that wrong will not prevent someone from having faith in Jesus). Do I believe it possible that the six days could be 144 hours? Of course it could be ... just like all those complicated equations for a geocentric view of the solar system could be correct. Is it the most likely to be accurate? No.


----------



## brianeschen

Brian Withnell said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this planet itself and the heavens themselves were created on Day One, why does it not say so?
> 
> Each of the creative days begins with ''and God said'' and Day One's account doesn't start until verse 3. Is it possible that verses 1 and 2 indicate that the heavens and earth were created an indeterminate time (short or long) before Day One started?
> 
> 
> 
> It is an argument from _silence_ and, contextually, it's eisogesis to _assume_ that there's a gap between verse 1 and 2. So I'll ask a question, similar to yours, if this planet itself and the heavens were created, then there was a large gap of time between this and the 6 Days of Creation, why does it not say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real issue is why does it say what it says. The problem with those that want Gen 1 to speak to the methodology of creation have to deal with the fact that there are inconsistencies in the account itself (day 4 is the creation of days). The better question to ask is does Gen 1 speak to the methods or chronology of creation at all ... in other words, what is God's purpose in communicating what Gen 1 says. If we don't know what God was attempting to communicate, we have no hope of understanding if the communication was "scientific/literal" or if it is more figurative.
> 
> I see absolutely no reason for God to be giving us an account of the chronology of creation. I see a great deal of interest in fitting what is revealed into a statement of "God created" and also of "formed" and "filled" in the account itself. The parallel is obvious ... the conjecture that God just happened to create in that order I believe is done as eisogesis rather than exogesis for some. The holding onto traditional interpretation of six literal days and then using that as a "Shibboleth" of orthodoxy seems to me counter productive, as it creates a situation in which something is held without question divides needlessly, and ultimately does not allow for honest investigation.
> 
> Is it possible that the Jews had the idea of the coming of the Messiah wrong after over a thousand years of looking for a king that would conquer their enemies? If they could get it wrong, we are no wiser or more holy than they. We could just as easily get wrong something of far lesser consequence (whether the six days are 144 hours or something totally different has little to do with salvation, and getting that wrong will not prevent someone from having faith in Jesus). Do I believe it possible that the six days could be 144 hours? Of course it could be ... just like all those complicated equations for a geocentric view of the solar system could be correct. Is it the most likely to be accurate? No.
Click to expand...

There is no inconsistency in saying that a day was created before day four, just as there is no inconsistency in saying that light was created before the sun moon and stars. I see no compelling reasons to take the creation account as figurative.

If we were to apply the same standard (apparent inconsistencies) as you do in determining the way to read the text, we could just as easily take the gospel accounts as figurative.


----------



## Skyler

Perhaps it would be worth pointing out that the word "day" is used to refer to a specific length of time(~24 hours) as well as one cycle of light and darkness. The cycle of light and darkness was created on the fourth day to correspond to the time unit already established.


----------



## jandrusk

Are we actually exegeting from the text or what has been said already, interjecting mans opinon to make the context fit into some nice scientific box without becoming heretics?


----------



## Skyler

jandrusk said:


> Are we actually exegeting from the text or what has been said already, interjecting mans opinon to make the context fit into some nice scientific box without becoming heretics?



I think there's a third option--fitting man's opinion between the cracks. There are a good many cracks where the Bible doesn't say everything, and so long as the opinion stays in the crack and doesn't leak out trying to change anything else, man's opinion is perfectly all right. Still, it's man's opinion, and that must be kept in mind. We're not dealing with infallibilities here.


----------



## Peairtach

Brian Withnell said:


> Denton Elliott said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think any gaps would be eisogesis and merely a result of trying to get man's "science" into the Text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem I see with your statement is that it presumes that the book of God's work cannot shed light on the book of God's word. All revelation of truth is God's revelation of truth, and he cannot contradict himself in any way. We no longer hold to a flat earth because we have proven the earth is mostly spherical. We don't hold to a geocentric solar system because we have shown (if by nothing else, the fact that sending Voyager out followed the rules for a heliocentric solar system). If we find our view of scripture contradicted by what we see in the world around us, we could be mistaken in either realm. While we look to the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth, we are not so perfect (and pig headed) that we can ignore what his leading is.
> 
> So if we find something out of accord between the book of God's word and the book of God's work, then we are duty bound to find the most reasonable reconciliation between the two. There are those that hold to a geocentric, flat earth ... but I find those premises incapable of being supported, and certainly any "test" devised to prove them would fail. Blinding ourselves to the revelation of God in the created universe is not wise. Questioning our view of scripture because we see a problem with it from revealed truth in the world around us is in fact wise. That does not mean that we look at what secular science says and question the Bible ... secular science rejects anything but mechanistic explanations for everything. What it does mean is that we cannot dismiss something as irrelevant just because it is discovered in the world around us.
> 
> I personally don't hold to a gap theory. (I hold to a framework view, because of the text itself ... it is a much richer and clearer view of the text itself than a straight chronology, and the 4th day is explained much clearer with a framework.) But your statement is an attempt to judge the heart ... rather than give honest investigation to those that are attempting to find the truth, you state "merely" as a minimizing of the theory based on what I think is a false presumption that the creation should not inform our study of the scriptures, even as our study of scriptures should inform our study of creation. Because it is not possible for there to be a contradiction between scripture and creation, our study of either can lead us to question our interpretation of the other.
> 
> Just as the scientific method flowed out of the reformation principles of heurmeneutics (simple rules for interpretation that when followed will lead, for the most part, anyone to the same conclusions ... "the interpretation of scripture is one") we cannot ignore those that look at a simple interpretation that needs not use conjecture to explain either the text itself, or the revelation of God in creation. While we must use scripture to interpret scripture, we cannot do so in a vacuum. The church has egg on its face from condemnation of Galileo ... we should not be blind to any truths we see, and we need not fear anything discovered by looking at the universe which God created. Secularists should not be the ones discovering the universe, we should. If we examine our view of both the world and the word and find them in agreement, we can be more sure of the interpretaton of both. (Not that there is *anything* wrong with the revelation in either, but that we have not made an error in either.)
Click to expand...


I don't subscribe to the Framework Hypothesis. Such treatment of the Bible is more suited to a symbolic book like Revelation than an historical book like Genesis. 

The Framework Hypothesis seems completely arbitrary and out of place in Genesis One; and why should the symbolism and literary arrangements stop at Genesis One and not also include Genesis Two and Three, etc.

Any system that extends the length of days to stick in current science's millions of years also has various theological problems e.g. if Man wasn't around as the head of creation for millions of years, creation had no head/viceregent/vicegerent/prophet/priest and king.

Some Christians are willing to challenge secularists on Darwinism, but obviously many Christians feel the evidence for millions of years is stronger than the evidence for Darwinism, and give in to that. Are there not multiple holes in both? Can the scientists who are so wrong about all life being related, not be wrong in their timing of events?


----------



## shackleton

I have been watching a lot of science documentaries lately about how the earth was made and geology in general. These scientists were able to make models and accelerate the formation of the earth into only a few hours, so my thought is, if _they_ can do it why can't another vastly superior intelligent designer do the same thing. Why couldn't God have done what the scientists say happen but accelerate it into 24 hours. No one until the 19th century had any reason to believe that God took any more, or less, than 24 hours to create everything. 
In Augustine's day they argued over whether it actually took 6 days to create everything. 
If we can except the other miracle's in the bible why is it so hard for Christians to believe the miracle of creation in 6 days? Who do we believe more? Science or Sola Scriptura?


----------



## Peairtach

God would have made the earth to appear old, like Adam and the trees and animals, etc.

The question of fossils is more difficult, but not insuperable considering the errors scientists can make.


----------



## shackleton

What is the problem of fossils? There was a flood and there have been volcanoes. Being under water would give the earth an appearance of age. 

I would find more solace in the Framework Hypothesis than the millions of years scenario. 

If you trace out what you can of the genealogy in Genesis you will find it is several thousand years from Adam to the flood. Besides, who knows how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they fell.


----------



## Peairtach

shackleton said:


> What is the problem of fossils? There was a flood and there have been volcanoes. Being under water would give the earth an appearance of age.
> 
> I would find more solace in the Framework Hypothesis than the millions of years scenario.
> 
> If you trace out what you can of the genealogy in Genesis you will find it is several thousand years from Adam to the flood. Besides, who knows how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they fell.



The fossils are given dates of millions of years. The dates must be wrong, but scientific dating techniques seem to be the hardest thing for Christians to challenge in this whole debate. I'm aware of the Creationist analysis of these dates and dating techniques but many Christians - including evangelical and Reformed aren't persuaded - hence, Old Earth Creationism, Day Age Theory and Framework Hypothesis.

The Framework Hypothesis and the Day Age Theory are held by those who want to smuggle in millions of years into the Days of Creation.

I hold to the view that the period from Adam to now is several thousands of years longer than 6,000 years because of accepted gaps in genealogies.


----------



## shackleton

I agree with your last line. I am just assuming that there is an explanation for why things look and appear the way they do and since science is pretty much the religion of evolution I don't buy they're theories on how things came to be. That does not mean I do not learn from what they have learned from their observations. Science has a purpose but just because they have cured some diseases and gotten us to the moon does not mean they can determine_ all _truth. Especially since their theories change constantly.


----------



## Theognome

toddpedlar said:


> Jake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denton Elliott said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is if you never heard of modern "science", you would never read Genesis 1 and think, "millions of years ago"... Especially not between the first verse and the first day of creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is (note that I am just now thinking this through) that by Genesis 3 Satan has already fallen (meaning the angels were created). Genesis 3 is the next event after the creation of woman on the 6th day (Gen 1:27). We don't know how much time passed between Genesis 2 and 3, as the next event we have a time for is the birth of Seth when Adam was 130. Seth was a "replacement" for Cain (Gen 5:25), but by this time there were already enough people for there to be other lands, such as Nod where Cain went (Gen 4:16).
> 
> All this is to say that I think it is reasonable for the fall to have been fairly soon after the initial creation, and Satan would have already had to have fallen from heaven first. I am not saying its million years or basing it on current "scientific" ideas of the age of the Earth, but simply saying it would make sense for Satan to have fallen before the creation process or the creation of man. Otherwise, we have Satan falling quite quickly from heaven after the creation of the angels. This isn't impossible or anything though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> On what day do you think the angels were created? We're not told, but are you really of the impression that if they were created, say, on day 1 (remember that they shouted for joy at the foundation of the Earth according to Job 38), it would have been impossible for Satan to have let his pride get the best of him and lead a revolt before man's creation? I don't see ANY reason stemming from the need for a time for the angels to fall for anything beyond the six days we're told about.
Click to expand...


It is worth noting that God created the heavens and the earth, but only the latter creation is described. If we understand the heavens to be His spiritual domain and that both were created in the order given, then the whole fall of Satan may indeed have happened before the earth was made.

Theognome


----------



## Brian Withnell

brianeschen said:


> There is no inconsistency in saying that a day was created before day four, just as there is no inconsistency in saying that light was created before the sun moon and stars. I see no compelling reasons to take the creation account as figurative.
> 
> If we were to apply the same standard (apparent inconsistencies) as you do in determining the way to read the text, we could just as easily take the gospel accounts as figurative.



The plain meaning of it would have to be figurative. For exactly the reasons you state. There is light before there is a sun, there are "days" before the creation of days. What seems obvious to me is that it is figurative. Each of the "days" follows a formed/filled pattern, and while one could conjecture that just happened to be the way God created things, the day 1/day 4 seems so obvious that you have to come up with conjectural explanations of how it is possible to have days prior to the sun being created. The plain meaning is that it has to be figurative. I find it hard to believe that someone who approaches Gen 1 without knowledge of either science or any concept of 144 hour creation would not find the 1/4, 2/5, 3/6 parallel compelling as a figurative description of creation especially if they were careful in exegesis of the day 1 and day 4 accounts.

The "inconsistencies", as you put it, in the gospel accounts are not a single passage of scripture by a single witness. If we had inconsistencies in a single passage of any one of the gospels that "gospel" would probably not have been included in the canon.

If one reads yom as something other than 24 hour day in Gen. 1, there is no inconsistency at all ... not even an apparent inconsistency. There is no reason to take Gen 1 as literal (no doctrine of the faith is critical in a 144 hour creation) and there is ample reason to take it figuratively (there would be no reason to conjecture how a 24 hour day could exist prior to the advent of the sun.

What day 4 states in v14:


> Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;


the salient part is "for signs and for seasons and for days and years;". That from a plain reading, without having to conjecture how days could be prior to that, is the creation of days. Give the passage internal consistency and it shouts that the day 1 through day 6 are anything but 24 hour days as we know them. I'm not arguing about inconsistency from one book to another, or even one chapter to another. I'm talking about within a single thought (the inconsistency if day 4 is a 24 hour day is right within the six verses that make up the account of day 4.

I'm sorry if I'm rather emphatic about it, but it is pure conjecture to take those six verses apart and have the creation of 24 hour days within that section apply to the yom of "day 4" of the larger passage. If that isn't compelling, then nothing of logic and reason are compelling, and we might as well go back to high priests that dictate the doctrine of the church to us.

-----Added 6/25/2009 at 12:20:41 EST-----



shackleton said:


> I have been watching a lot of science documentaries lately about how the earth was made and geology in general. These scientists were able to make models and accelerate the formation of the earth into only a few hours, so my thought is, if _they_ can do it why can't another vastly superior intelligent designer do the same thing. Why couldn't God have done what the scientists say happen but accelerate it into 24 hours. No one until the 19th century had any reason to believe that God took any more, or less, than 24 hours to create everything.
> In Augustine's day they argued over whether it actually took 6 days to create everything.
> If we can except the other miracle's in the bible why is it so hard for Christians to believe the miracle of creation in 6 days? Who do we believe more? Science or Sola Scriptura?



The reformers pushed against Augustine against his created in an instant ... so what did Augustine think about the creation account? He surely thought it was *figurative*_ long before there was any notion of science giving an age of 4 billion years to the Earth_. If Augustine thought it figurative, as he must, then there was ample reason to think it figurative before science was even born. The argument that it is only because of science that anyone would consider it figurative is hollow in the extreme from that very example. The discussion has nothing to do with science, though if we can examine the book of God's work and see evidence that points toward a different interpretation, and that interpretation is consistent with the rest of scripture, then we should at least consider it. Just because science learned the heliocentric nature of the solar system doesn't mean we have to dismiss it as wrong. Neither do we have to dismiss having an OE for the same reason. The Bible is not a science textbook ... what it says is true, but we have to understand what it says apart from what we might want it to say. God doesn't necessarily answer the questions we want to ask. He answers the questions he thinks we should have asked.


----------



## shackleton

What do you do with the Ten Commandments where Moses tells the Hebrews to set apart a Sabbath and keep it holy because God created everything in six days then rested so man, created in God's image, should do likewise?


----------



## brianeschen

Brian Withnell said:


> The plain meaning of it would have to be figurative. For exactly the reasons you state. There is light before there is a sun, there are "days" before the creation of days. What seems obvious to me is that it is figurative. Each of the "days" follows a formed/filled pattern, and while one could conjecture that just happened to be the way God created things, the day 1/day 4 seems so obvious that you have to come up with conjectural explanations of how it is possible to have days prior to the sun being created. The plain meaning is that it has to be figurative. I find it hard to believe that someone who approaches Gen 1 without knowledge of either science or any concept of 144 hour creation would not find the 1/4, 2/5, 3/6 parallel compelling as a figurative description of creation especially if they were careful in exegesis of the day 1 and day 4 accounts.


The reasons that you state for concluding that the passage has to be figurative does not follow. If God said that there was light before the sun, moon and stars, all it means is that He created light before the sun, moon and stars. It does not mean that the account must be taken figuratively. Again the same holds true for the day. My point in the last post is that there really is no contradiction in having light before the celestial bodies just as there is no contradiction in having days before the same. It may be an apparent contradiction, just as many find apparent contradictions to discount the gospel accounts, but it is not a contradiction.

Because God created using the 1/4, 2/5, and 3/6 parallel also does not necessitate taking this passage as figurative. It could just show that God in His creating employed structure, order and beauty.


----------



## Peairtach

shackleton said:


> What do you do with the Ten Commandments where Moses tells the Hebrews to set apart a Sabbath and keep it holy because God created everything in six days then rested so man, created in God's image, should do likewise?



I don't know what Brian Withnell makes of this text but I thought someone would have brought up this passage before now in connection with the Modified Gap Theory.

Exodus 20 appears to teach that everything including the unformed and unfilled earth was created in Six Days. But when we move from Exodus 20 to Genesis 1 for more detail, we appear to find the unformed and unfilled earth created before Day One.

It appears that in Exodus Moses is just summarising the forming and filling of the already unformed and unfilled earth. The word he uses is _hahsah_ which means created or formed from existing materials, rather than _bahrah_ which means created out of nothing.


----------



## Brian Withnell

shackleton said:


> What do you do with the Ten Commandments where Moses tells the Hebrews to set apart a Sabbath and keep it holy because God created everything in six days then rested so man, created in God's image, should do likewise?



The same way that Augustine did. Just because there was a figurative six days in the creation ... in what God revealed of creation ... then his using those figurative days as the basis for setting apart a seventh day (which never ended in the account, so it still continues) is perfectly logical. In fact, it could be (a conjecture, but totally unnecessary to the interpretation) that the reason for the figurative six days was explicitly to provide for a sabbath rest.

Brian, you said:


> The reasons that you state for concluding that the passage has to be figurative does not follow. If God said that there was light before the sun, moon and stars, all it means is that He created light before the sun, moon and stars....



For what you to say to be the proper interpretation you have to have the conjecture that the first three days just happened to be 24 hours, when the 4th day was when 24 hour days as we know them were created. That is a sufficient reason to believe the days of creation are figurative. It might be possible to find an implausible set of circumstances for justifying a literal interpretation, but the same is true of the implausible idea that the sun moves around the earth. Is it possible? Yes. But it is certainly not what we have to believe in order to have the text of scripture inerrant and infallible.

My principles in looking at the passage are: First, the Bible is without error. Second, the simple interpretation is probably correct more often than a complicated conjecture. Third, internal consistency of a passage is stronger than attempts to force consistency across books (an extension of the first point). Fourth, in those cases where the scripture is unclear, it should be interpreted by other more clear passages.

I believe I have met all four of these principles with a framework interpretation (and I don't even have to look at the fourth, as the passage is clear in situ).

I've established a logically reasoned support for a framework interpretation. That is, I have shown that it is not pure conjecture, it is based on the text itself, and that it is in accord with the rest of scripture. At that point, if someone wants to convince me otherwise, it is up to them to prove what I have said is false, not show that it is possible that there are other interpretations (including the 144 hour creation).

What I find rather absurd is that people are demanding that there be an absolute proof for anything other than 144 hour creation, when in fact all that is required logically is that it be more likely that it is figurative. I am not trying to prove that it could not be 144 hour ... I'm saying that I believe it was a framework and figurative. I've given reason for that, and while people are saying that does not prove it was not literal, I do not believe that is what is required here. What is required is a logical exegetical view of the passage that fits not only the passage in question, but the rest of scripture. It is not my goal to prove beyond any doubt ... neither should your goal be to prove 144 hour beyond any doubt.

While I do not think 144 hour interpretation of Gen 1 is correct, I can see it is minimally reasoned, it is not pure conjecture (though I believe it relies on conjecture for parts), that it does not conflict with the rest of scripture. With that, I would not want to attempt to prove it wrong. I can give reasons for my disagreeing with it, give my opinion as to why I hold a different viewpoint. But just like other passages that are not explicit to what the whole church believes (anyone for a post, pre, or a mil debate?) there is room for disagreement and fellowship.


----------



## Peairtach

Brian Withnell said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do with the Ten Commandments where Moses tells the Hebrews to set apart a Sabbath and keep it holy because God created everything in six days then rested so man, created in God's image, should do likewise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way that Augustine did. Just because there was a figurative six days in the creation ... in what God revealed of creation ... then his using those figurative days as the basis for setting apart a seventh day (which never ended in the account, so it still continues) is perfectly logical. In fact, it could be (a conjecture, but totally unnecessary to the interpretation) that the reason for the figurative six days was explicitly to provide for a sabbath rest.
> 
> Brian, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons that you state for concluding that the passage has to be figurative does not follow. If God said that there was light before the sun, moon and stars, all it means is that He created light before the sun, moon and stars....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For what you to say to be the proper interpretation you have to have the conjecture that the first three days just happened to be 24 hours, when the 4th day was when 24 hour days as we know them were created. That is a sufficient reason to believe the days of creation are figurative. It might be possible to find an implausible set of circumstances for justifying a literal interpretation, but the same is true of the implausible idea that the sun moves around the earth. Is it possible? Yes. But it is certainly not what we have to believe in order to have the text of scripture inerrant and infallible.
> 
> My principles in looking at the passage are: First, the Bible is without error. Second, the simple interpretation is probably correct more often than a complicated conjecture. Third, internal consistency of a passage is stronger than attempts to force consistency across books (an extension of the first point). Fourth, in those cases where the scripture is unclear, it should be interpreted by other more clear passages.
> 
> I believe I have met all four of these principles with a framework interpretation (and I don't even have to look at the fourth, as the passage is clear in situ).
> 
> I've established a logically reasoned support for a framework interpretation. That is, I have shown that it is not pure conjecture, it is based on the text itself, and that it is in accord with the rest of scripture. At that point, if someone wants to convince me otherwise, it is up to them to prove what I have said is false, not show that it is possible that there are other interpretations (including the 144 hour creation).
> 
> What I find rather absurd is that people are demanding that there be an absolute proof for anything other than 144 hour creation, when in fact all that is required logically is that it be more likely that it is figurative. I am not trying to prove that it could not be 144 hour ... I'm saying that I believe it was a framework and figurative. I've given reason for that, and while people are saying that does not prove it was not literal, I do not believe that is what is required here. What is required is a logical exegetical view of the passage that fits not only the passage in question, but the rest of scripture. It is not my goal to prove beyond any doubt ... neither should your goal be to prove 144 hour beyond any doubt.
> 
> While I do not think 144 hour interpretation of Gen 1 is correct, I can see it is minimally reasoned, it is not pure conjecture (though I believe it relies on conjecture for parts), that it does not conflict with the rest of scripture. With that, I would not want to attempt to prove it wrong. I can give reasons for my disagreeing with it, give my opinion as to why I hold a different viewpoint. But just like other passages that are not explicit to what the whole church believes (anyone for a post, pre, or a mil debate?) there is room for disagreement and fellowship.
Click to expand...


What about the theological problems of the Days as representing millions of years? This seems to be what Framework Hypothesists and Day Agers put into the period represented by the Six Days.

(a) Millions of years of upheaval, death, disease and destruction among the earth, plants and animals _before_ Adam sinned. Surely the Curse followed logically and temporally _after_ the Fall?

(b) Millions of years of a created world without God's vicegerent.

Millions of years seems to blend better with _current_ science. But 144 hours seems to tie in better with theology. Otherwise we have a God Who is cursing His earth while creating it. 

This is why in particular I am sceptical of attempts to reconcile current science's millions of years with the Days. Once all the facts are in and once there is a revival of biblical Christianity, not only Darwinism will fail, but also the interpretation of the timing.


----------

