| |
Variants of the Day-Age Theory
Several scholars, recognizing the fact that the "days" of the
Creation record can only reasonably be understood as literal days,
yet not wishing to question the supposed geological history of
evolution-creation, have sought to modify the day-age theory by
various means.
One such device proposes that the Creation narrative consists
of a series of visions, each vision corresponding to an apparent
creative day. But although revelation in Scripture is frequently
in the form of visions, especially in connection with prophecy,
such visions are always clearly evident as such, so that the reader
immediately recognizes the necessity of interpreting symbolically.
But the Genesis account is written as a mater-of-fact history, with
no intimation from the writer that the account is meant to be
understood as a series of symbolic visions.
A variant of the vision theory is that the Creation record was
recorded on six tablets, possibly by Adam himself, at the dictation
of God. Thus, it is supposed to represent what God said on each
six days of revelation. There may be truth in the idea that God
revealed the Creation narrative to man at a very early date, and
that it possibly was recorded on tablets in the style of other
ancient writings. However, this is hardly evidence that the
Genesis account merely records the revelation rather than the
actual history of Creation. The best refutation of this theory
appears to be a simple reading of the Genesis record. The natural
reading of the narrative of each day's work certainly gives the
impression that the concluding summary: "And the evening and the
morning were the . . . day, refers to the creative work of the day,
and not merely the work of making the day's tablet, as the theory
requires.
Another theory that has been suggested is that the Creation
days represent breaks between the geologic ages, days in which God
performed special creative works, each day then being followed by
long ages of slow development in the style of orthodox historical
geology. This theory also requires a very unnatural reading of the
Creation record, which is apparently continuous and is meant to
describe the Creation of "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is." Nor does the theory at all harmonize with orthodox
geology. The geologic record often reveals gaps, sudden
beginnings, etc., but these characteristics are far more frequent
of occurrence, and more uniformly spread over geologic time than
could possibly be harmonized with the idea of six great creative
interjections into geologic history.
These and similar modifications of the basic day-age theory,
although in some degree they appear to avoid difficulties inherent
in the attempt to work out a real correspondence between the days
of Genesis and the ages of geology, are nevertheless still subject
to most of the same criticisms as the basic theory. These need not
be reviewed here, but could quickly be demonstrated as equally
applicable to all the various forms of the day-age theory. In any
form, it appears quite inadequate as a means of bringing the
Creation record into harmony with orthodox historical geology.
Many evangelical expositors in recent years have gone to the
extreme of insisting that the Creation record need not be
interpreted in terms of history or science at all; that is, the
first few chapters of Genesis are to be understood allegorically,
or poetically, rather than historically. Genesis I merely tells us
that God is the Creator, but does not tell us anything about the
actual historical order of creation. This type of exegesis,
however, is presumptuous and dangerous, to say the least. It
divests these very important records of any real meaning or
significance. This method could obviously be used to emasculate
any portion of the Bible which for one reason or another, was
objectionable to the reader. Most seriously, it charges the New
Testament writers (note Romans 5:12-19; I Corinthians 15:21, 22,
45-47; Luke 3:38, Jude 14; etc.), and even Christ Himself (Matthew
19:3-6) with either credulity or duplicity, since they plainly
taught that Adam and the events of Genesis 1-3 were genuinely
historical.
Recent Creation in Six Days
The only really legitimate interpretation of the Creation
record which fits the description in Genesis is apparently the
literal one, namely that Creation took place in six literal days.
The Bible says that God "rested" after the six days; the "works
were finished from the foundation of the world" (Hebrews 4:3). The
processes used by God in Creation are therefore not now in
operation, and thus cannot be studied in terms of present physical
laws and phenomena. The principle of uniformity, however, valid it
may be at present, cannot be applied to the six days of Creation.
It is therefore not surprising that a historical geology built upon
this principle, and purporting to give an account of the origins of
the earth and its inhabitants, is found to be contradictory to the
revealed record of Creation. Since Creation was accomplished by
entirely different processes than we can not study scientifically,
it is clear that the only way we can know anything definitely about
Creation is by means of God's revelation concerning it. This
revelation He has given us in the Bible, and it teaches as plainly
as could possibly be put into the few words devoted to the subject
the fact of the creation of all things in six literal days. All
theories of attempted harmonization of the Biblical account with
orthodox geology require such juggling of the plain sense of the
account so as in effect to amount to its rejection, with the
implication that the Holy Spirit was unable to say what He meant to
say, and that therefore His record must now be corrected according
to our better understanding of Creation as discovered through the
study of geology.
Copied by written permission from ICR. "Studies in the Bible and
Science," by Henry M. Morris. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co., Philadelphia, PA. pp. 37-39.
|