“THREE VIEWS OF THE CREATION”



In view of the evidence for the great age of the earth, conservative Bible scholars have fro some time suggested interpretations which would allow for this evidence. Three views are commonly presented in fundamental circles, although it must be remembered those views are only theories of interpretation. Each theory is simply an attempt to make allowances for the apparent age of the earth without violating the plain statements made in the Word of God. Each of the three theories is presented to the student with the strength and weaknesses of each evaluated.


A.   The “Gap” Theory

This interpretation holds that a gap of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 of indefinite duration; that 1:1 speaks of the original creation in a perfect non-chaotic state; that this creation suffered judgment, perhaps at the time of Satan’s fall from heaven, with the result that all animals and any possible creation of man were destroyed and the earth became a watery mass as described in 1:2; and that following this judgment God recreated the earth in a period of six days of 24 hours each.


As Scofield points out in his footnote (note 2, page 3), “The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages.” We can readily see from this that even 60 years ago Scofield was seeking some Biblical interpretation that would allow acceptance of the evidence offered by geology that the earth was old. He further stated in footnote 3, page 4:


It is by no means necessary to suppose that the life-germ of seeds perished in the catastrophic judgment which overthrew the primitive order. With the restoration of dry land and light the earth would “bring forth” as described. It was animal life which perished, the traces of which remain as fossils. Relegate fossils to the primitive creation and not conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.

 

       Thus the “gap” theory offers explanation of creative time in an effort to harmonize the plain truths of Genesis (special revelation) with the evidence of science (natural revelation). Probably a majority of fundamentalists accept this explanation, but it still remains only a theory and should not be defended as a plainly revealed truth of God’s Word.

 

B.     The “Flood-Geology” Theory

       This interpretation holds that the evidence which geologists say requires a long period of time can be explained satisfactorily by the flood, and that, therefore, such an extensive period is not necessary to be accounted for in any other way. This involves believing that extinct life-forms then perished, such as the dinosaur; that the various layers of sedimentary rock were formed by the great pressure of water; that such a deposit as coal was formed by that same pressure upon vast accumulations of vegetation; that erosion, creating the great river systems, began largely when the flood waters drained away to the oceans; and that the disarrangement of types of rock from original localities and burial of animal and human remains under many feet of gravel are to be explained by the strong currents of water generated by the flood. This interpretation is held and taught by some very fine conservative Christian scholars who feel it answers more questions and raises fewer problems that the “gap” theory.

 

 

C.     The “Age-Day” Theory

       This interpretation holds that the six days of creation in Genesis 2 stand for six lengthy periods of time; that the creative events in those days roughly parallel the stages of development set forth by geology; and that this creative work required the same supernatural power of God as if He had chosen to create all, either instantaneously or over a period of six days of 24 hours each.


       This theory, too, has some favoring evidence, as well as some difficulties. It is not be confused with theistic evolution. Nor is the theory something new or associated with neo-evnagelicalism and neo-orthodoxy. Dr. William B. Riley held this position for years. Dr. James Gray, one time president of Moody Bible Institute, stated that the hypothesis of six day-period of unknown length has the stronger confirmation as compared with the 24 hours days. Scofield himself indicates the strong possibility that the recreative days of Genesis may refer to a period of time. His second footnote on page 4 states:


The use of “evening” and “morning” may be held to limit “day” to the solar day: but the frequent parabolic use of natural phenomena may warrant the conclusion that each creative “day” was a period of time marked off by a beginning and ending.