Creationists claim to read Genesis literally. This indeed is one of the proclamations made in the IEAC Reaffirmation Statement which says in its background that the various signatories “accept the creation record as literal in its details”. This is a fine sounding declaration. We thought we would align Genesis 1 in the KJV with the old earth creation model promoted by The Lampstand Magazine (a promoter of the Reaffirmation Statement). Lots of words had to be deleted or added. Be warned you might be upset. The intention is not to upset but rather demonstrate the old earth creation view is NOT a literal reading. Neither is the young earth creationist view, as should also be evidence from the below. Continue reading
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” Gen 2:24 KJV
The inspired author adds this explanatory comment to Genesis 2 which teaches marriage as a Divine institution. Christ directly refers back to this passage in Mark 10:6-8 when addressing the question of marriage and divorce. The Pharisees were trying to entrap Christ on the subject and the Lord points to the Garden as the intention and plan of God. This points to the historicity of Adam and Eve. Continue reading
“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also” Gen1:16 KJV
This verse also demonstrates extreme care should be taken when arguing for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. The language is at best phenomenal (ie incorrect due to the limitations of a human observer) not literal – the moon is not a great light except for its reflective capacity.
One difficulty for literalists in Genesis 1 is that light appeared and day/night was established prior to the creation of the sun on day 4. Attempts are made to explain this away by interpreting the word made (H6213 Asah) to mean ‘appoint’ (eg A Perry in the Testimony). However, this is not in line with the meaning of the word: Continue reading
“Let there be lights in the firmament of Heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years…” Gen1:14 KJV
This verse also demonstrates extreme care should be taken when arguing for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. A YEC brother would have no concern as they usually believe the whole planet is but 6,000 odd years old. However, for an OEC brother, the verse indicates the sun and moon didn’t have their existing function of regulating times and seasons before 6,000 years ago. This is hard to reconcile with what the OEC brother sees as evidence of past life and creations where the sun and the moon clearly operated to provide the same function they do in the world we know. Continue reading
Based on the above, the gap theory is not supported in the Hebrew of Gen1:1-2, has no basis in the words used of God creating and conflicts with other passages in Scripture. The passages used to justify the position are not strong. While an OEC believer would describe their understanding as literal, the YEC (and EC) brother has very strong grounds for rejecting that assessment. Continue reading
In Gen1:2 we are told the earth/world “was without form and void”. This situation was then addressed through the miracles which follow.
These words are found together in Isa34:11 which is speaking of the effect of judgment on the nations. Similarly in Jer4:23 the effect of God’s judgments on Jerusalem are described in these terms. Does the use of the words in the context of judgment support the idea that the formless and void in Gen1:2 was as a result of judgment (in contrast to the Hebrew construction, the context and other direct Scriptures)? No. You could expound that God would undo the miracle and blessings of creation and take them backwards to that first condition but to use these later judgment passages to expound Gen 1:2 is not sound exposition. Continue reading
There are a number of Hebrew words used for creating and making in Genesis1. Some argue there is a clear distinction in these words which supports a gap theory. The suggestion is that one word (bara) means to create from nothing whereas the other means to reform/build from existing material. Continue reading