The Modern Creation Trilogy. Dr. Henry M. Morris
Читать онлайн книгу.
saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain [the phrase ‘in vain’ is the Hebrew tohu, the same as ‘without form’ in Genesis 1:2], he formed it to be inhabited.”
The argument goes that, since the above verse says that God created not the earth tohu, and since the earth of Genesis 1:2 was tohu, therefore, the latter could not have been the earth as it was created in Genesis 1:1. The inference is that the earth became tohu by the pre-Adamic cataclysm.
Again, this interpretation requires lifting the verse out of its context. The verses before and after indicate that the subject at hand is Israel and God’s purposes and promises to His people. That is, just as the Lord had a purpose in creating the earth, so He has a purpose for Israel. In Isaiah 45:17, the preceding verse, He says, “Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.”
In support of this tremendous promise, God reminds the Israelites of His mighty creation itself, which was not without purpose. He “formed it to be inhabited,” and He accomplished that purpose, creating and redeeming (in Christ) a race of men in His own image. Just so, He will accomplish His purpose for His special people, Israel.
The fact that His full purpose in creation was not completed on the first day of creation is irrelevant. He “created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited,” and He accomplished that purpose. The word tohu has several shades of meaning, depending on context. It occurs 20 times and is translated 10 different ways in the King James translation. The context in Isaiah 45:18 justifies the translation “in vain” or “without purpose.” The context in Genesis 1:2 warrants “without form” or “structureless.”
There is no conflict, therefore, between Isaiah 45:18 and the statement of an initial formless aspect to the created earth in Genesis 1:2. The former can properly be understood as follows: “God created it not [to be forever] without form; he formed it to be inhabited.” As described in Genesis 1, He proceeded to bring beauty and structure to the formless elements, and then inhabitants to the waiting lands.
It should be remembered that Isaiah 45:18 was written many hundreds of years after Genesis 1:2, and that its context deals with Israel, not a pre-Adamic cataclysm. Such an isolated and incidental verse, which is easily capable of an alternate interpretation, is hardly an adequate base on which to build a theory of such tremendous import as that of a presumed primeval cataclysm.
Two verses in the New Testament have occasionally been used to support the gap theory. One is 2 Corinthians 4:6: “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts.” The darkness in the heart results from sin and is illuminated by the entrance of Christ. Just so, it is said, the primeval darkness must also have been a result of sin.
The analogy breaks down, however. The gap theory postulates a perfect world in the beginning, plunged into darkness, and then illuminated again when God commanded the light to shine out of darkness. A soul in darkness, however, is born in darkness. The true analogy would be with a world that was also born in darkness. Darkness is not evil in itself, since it was created by God. “I form the light, and create darkness” (Isa. 45:7). Perhaps this analogy even suggests the reason that God first created the world in darkness, so that the work of creation might serve as a pattern and type of the work of the “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17) created by the Holy Spirit in the receptive heart.
The other verse is 2 Peter 3:6: “The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” Although some have taken this as a reference to a pre-Adamic cataclysm, it is obvious that it refers instead to the flood of Noah. The very word “overflowed” indicates this. It is the Greek word kataklusmos. In its noun form, it occurs four times (Matt. 24:38–39; Luke 17:27; and 2 Pet. 2:5), referring always to the flood of Noah. There has been only one global cataclysm in earth history, not two, and that was the great Flood described in Genesis 6–9.
One other interesting argument has been advanced. The phrase “foundation of the world” (Matt. 13:35 and nine other places) can be translated “casting-down [Greek katabole] of the world,” and the suggested idea is that it may refer to a primeval cataclysm. A foundation is “cast down” or “laid down,” so the word is used properly to mean “foundation,” as Greek scholars uniformly agree. There is nothing in the context of any of the ten occurrences to suggest such a novel interpretation as that of a primeval cataclysm. The phrase simply means “foundation of the world” and nothing more.
The lack of any clear biblical evidence for the gap theory, along with the highly equivocal nature of all its supposed proof-texts — in the context of its scientific fallacies and its serious theological problems — is adequate justification for rejecting it altogether. God does not speak in uncertain sounds (see 1 Cor. 14:8).
6. The Pre-Genesis Gap Theory
Dr. Merrill F. Unger and others have proposed a modified gap theory. Convinced that the Hebrew construction of Genesis 1:1–2 precludes a gap between these two verses, Unger suggests placing the angelic sin and pre-Adamic cataclysm before Genesis 1:1. In this view, the statement, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” refers to a re-creation, following the geological ages.
There is no biblical basis for this view. Unger was frank in saying that its basis was the necessity to accommodate the geological ages.
However, all the same scientific and theological objections to the gap theory that have already been presented apply with equal force to Unger’s modification of the theory. The geological ages that the theory tries to adopt are based upon the system of evolutionary uniformitarianism that Unger professed to reject. There is no room at all for the imaginary pre-Adamic cataclysm in the standard concept of geological ages.
Similarly, the existence of evil, suffering, and death in the world prior to the six days of creation week, and even prior to Satan’s rebellion — as required by the very concept of geological ages — seems explicitly precluded by the nature of God as a God of order, purpose, efficiency and love, as well as by such Scriptures as Genesis 1:31 (“very good”) and Romans 5:12 (“death by sin”).
The Framework Hypothesis
It has been seen that the geological ages cannot be placed before the six days of creation (gap theory), during the six days of creation (day-age theory), or after the six days (which, since they antedate man, no one suggests at all). The only remaining possibility is that either the six days or the geological ages had no existence in the first place.
To someone who is firmly committed to the geological ages (and therefore to evolution), there is no alternative but to give up belief in Genesis as an actual historical record of the events of creation. This is what all liberal theologians have done long ago, and what increasing numbers of evangelicals are tragically doing today.
Many of these latter wish to retain some kind of confidence in the divine inspiration of Genesis, rather than to reject it completely. Accordingly, they have tried to consider the creation story as some kind of literary device, rather than actual history. The “framework hypothesis” of Genesis 1–11 views these chapters as essentially a rhetorical framework within which are developed the grand spiritual themes of “creation” (the divine source and meaning of reality), of man’s “fall” (man’s ever-recurring experience of spiritual and moral inadequacy), and of “reconciliation” (the broad currents in history through which man is seeking to understand and appropriate spiritual meaning in life).
The particular “framework” in which these ideas are developed varies according to the particular expositor. Some speak of Genesis as “allegorical,” others as “liturgical,” others as “poetic,” others as “supra-historical.” All agree, however, in rejecting it as “scientific” or “historical.” They concur that Genesis teaches the fact of “creation” and the “fall,” but deny that it has anything to say concerning the method. They hope to retain whatever theological significance Genesis may have, while at the same time avoiding scientific embarrassment.
This type of biblical exegesis is out of the question for any real believer in the Bible. It is the method of so-called