Modified Gap Theory

[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]

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.

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.

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]

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-----

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.