Creation Sunday School Series
Refutation of Errors
by Richard Stetler
Day-Age Theory
The word "Yom" in Gen. 1 may be understood to be a geological period as proposed by modern geology. As it is used in Gen. 2:4.
Biblical View The normal meaning of “day” in scripture is a 24-hour period unless the context dictates otherwise. Gen.7:11; 8:4,5; 40:20; 42:18; Ex.2:13; 12:3,6,15; 16:22,27; 35:2; Num. 19:12,19 - when preceded by a number day without exception in the Pentateuch is understood to be a specific day; Gen. 22:4; Num. 8:17 - even when a number is not given, "day" is usually referring to a specific day, a 24 hour period; evening and morning - Ex.18:13; Num. 9:15,21; 1 Sam.17:16
Principle #1: One must interpret general revelation by special revelation, not vice versa. The heavens tell us that there is a Creator. Scripture tells who that Creator is; it the Creator's revelation of Himself to His Elect. Science can never tell us how to understand Scripture; but Scriptue will tell us how to understand science.
An indefinite period of time (Job 20:28; Ps. 20:1; Eccl. 7:14); Appeals are made to such passages as 2 Peter 3:8 which says that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
Biblical View Deut. 31:17,18; Job 20:28; Psa. 20:1; Eccl. 7:14 - Though day may be used for an indefinite period of time, the natural reading of the text will give that meaning; it doesn't have to be forced upon the text as it is being done in Gen. 1. An appeal to 2 Pet. 3:8 does support the day-age theory either for it has nothing to do with God creating the heavens and the earth, about His longsuffering towards man and his determination the none of His Elect are lost despite their foolish way of thinking (cf. vs. 1-9 for context)
Principle #2: Genesis is prose giving a historical account of God's creation, the Fall, and His redemptive purpose for His Elect. Though poetry may be used in a historical account, it will be obvious to the reader that that form of literature is being used.
Another argument used to justify this long age from the Bible is the assertion that God is still resting from His work of creation, that is, the seventh day is still continuing. Thus, if the 7th day is longer than 24 hours surely we can allow the first 6 days to be the same.1
Biblical View Ex. 20:8,10,11 - the whole basis of the sabbath day rest is based upon the days of creation; Gen. 2:3 says that God blessed the 7th day and sanctified it. Rest - Exodus 31:17; John 5:17. It is worthy of note Mike Stallard's comments on this issue: "The appeal to Gen. 2:2 and God’s continuing rest (7th day) is flat wrong! It does not say that God “is resting” but that he “rested” (completed action). In fact, other passages seems to indicate that God’s rest is over and that He has finished his rest and has been refreshed and now works although not in creation work (Ex. 31:17, John 5:17). Furthermore, Gen. 2:3 says that God blessed the 7th day and sanctified it. But would this be true if the 7th day consisted of all of earth history since then including the entrance of sin into the world in Gen. 3? Did God bless that?
Principle #3: Contrary to what modern humanistic science says, the Scripture teaches us that a fish was created a fish and will always be a fish, a bird was created a bird and will always be a bird, a cow was created a cow and will always be a cow, a monkey was created a monkey and will always be a monkey, and a man was created a man in the image of God and will always be a man created in the image of God, male and female. (1 Cor. 15:39)
The Punctuated Day Theory
The days of the God's creating act are separated by periods of time. Rev. Walker describes what is meant: "the actual creation week went something like this: Day One, then a few million years; Day Two, another few million years; Day Three, followed by still another few million years, etc. According to this view, the "days" highlight the creative activity of God."
Biblical View Not any Biblical support for this theory. Rev. Walker states, "there is no Biblical warrant for inserting eons of time between the days of creation." This is just another compromise to accommodate the Biblical account of creation to evolutionary theory.
Gap Theory
There are many versions of the Gap Theory, but most agree that the time supposedly "required" by modern science can be put into this assumed gap. During this supposed time, many events took place which God did not tell us about. Basically, this theory "holds that there was a long interval of time between Gen. 1:1 and 1:3-31." God created the the heavens and the earth perfectly in v. 1, then Satan fell in v. 2 and God's original creation was destroyed; became "without form and void . . . darkness was on the face of the deep," as a result. The key to this theory is changing the verb "was" to "became" in v. 2.
Biblical View This theory, prolmugated by Bruce Walke, seeks to answer the question of the apparent "old age" of the earth" without lending support to evolution, though the theory was developed after evolution came into vogue. Dr. Rosscup, a professor at The Master's Seminary stated that God is a god of miracles and is very capable of creating a mature earth (cf. Gen. 1:26); God acted in an orderly way and the Genesis account flows naturally from 1:1 to 2:3. From vs. 3-31 refer to creation and not a re-creation or re-completion. Rev. Walker strengthen's Dr. Rosscup's comments when he says, . . . "was" is certainly the correct rendering of the Hebrew verb in verse 2. Yet, without a change in this verse there is no other Scriptural warrant to justify a gap in the early verses of Genesis 1, for the usual passages that are cited (viz., Job 9:4-7; Isa. 24:1; 45:18; Jer. 4:23-26; 2 Pet. 2:4) and do not speak about the original creation. Further, the Bible uniformly teaches that God made not only heaven and earth, but also all the hosts of them, six days (Gen. 2:1; Ex. 20:11)
Progressive Creation Theory (or "Process Creation")
This is a view of theistic evolution (God used evolution as his way of creating) or of progressive creation, usually the latter among Christians. Progressive creation, theorized and popularized by Hugh Ross, is the idea that at the end of each age God intervenes in the process of creation to create something new. This approach is especially attractive to those who want to account for the gaps in the fossil record without an appeal to Lucifer’s Flood (Gap Theory) or Noah’s Flood (literal view).1 The more conservative Progressive Creationists present God as doing many more creative miracles. That is, God creates the world in numerous progressive steps.
Biblical View It is obvious then that Progressive Creationism is a belief which opposes both atheistic evolutionism and historic Christianity's understanding of biblical creationism. The teachings of Progressive Creationism are not new or original, but only recently have the views of Progressive Creationism received unprecedented wide and favorable publicity through Christian radio, television and magazines. Because Progressive Creationists often present their views as being based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, they have been invited to speak at numerous prominent evangelical churches, schools and ministries. Clearly, Progressive Creationism is an attempt by many evangelical Christians to harmonize the teachings of modern science with the Bible. However, rather than confirming the truths of the Bible, Progressive Creationism supports the foundational tenets of evolutionary science and causes greater anxiety among believers that indeed God's word cannot be rightly understood by the common, untrained layperson. The "proofs" for Progressive Creationism come mainly from the field of science, not from the simple teachings of the Bible. In this way, Progressive Creation erects a subtle barrier between the believer and the Bible, a wall is constructed between the believer and God Himself.
The "Big Bang" is interpreted as God's way of producing stars and galaxies through billions-of-years of natural processes.
Biblical View See the Day-Age comments above
The Earth and universe are billions of years old.
Biblical View See the Day-Age comments above
The days of Creation were overlapping periods of millions and billions of years.
Biblical View See the Day-Age comments above
Death and bloodshed have existed from the very beginning of Creation and were not the result of Adam's sin. Man was created after the vast majority of earth's history of life and death had already taken place.
Biblical View This is the aspect of "Process Creation" that is the most disturbing; that is, it should be if one believes that he is redeemed from the curse of the Fall through Christ's death on the cross. Van Bebber puts it this way, "the most dangerous of its teachings is the proposal that Adam and Eve were created after the majority of earth's history had already taken place, including eons of death among the animals. Their timeline includes millions of years of major disasters befalling the animals before Adam or sin, including disease, famines, volcanic destruction, hurricanes, tornadoes, asteroid impacts, supernovas etc. As a result, animals frequently became extinct, never to be seen by man. The belief that death existed prior to the fall undermines the Bible's clear teaching that death is a result of sin (I Corinthians 15:21-22; Romans 5:12). Any theory which places man or animal death prior to the fall of Adam must be rejected."2
Framework Theory
The "days" of creation have nothing to do with time, but are "forms" or "images" designed by God to help us understand an otherwise unintellibible act of creation. Rev. Walker states it this way, in reference to Kline's "hypotheses," "his two-register theory has the effect of separating the actual historical events of this world from a supra-historical heavenly plan or decree. The creation of the world took place in six "days" in the upper register, but by the time it worked its way out on earth the days took on a topical nature."2 In this discussion though there many roads to travel in Kline's mythology, I will only focus on two aspects of his myth will be explored: the "two-register cosmology myth; and Kline's understanding of Gen. 2:5.
Biblical View Formulated by Meredith G. Kline, it is the most insidious of all of the alternatives to a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. In his paper, "Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis," Rev. Walker quotes John Calvin admonishing us that "we ought to have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning." It is a shame that there are those who find it necessary to disguise the natural meaning of Scripture in the pretense of Biblical exegeis; such as Kline does in his formulation of the Framework Myth. The most basic feature of the Framework Hypothesis is that it applies a literary approach to Scripture. The fact that one recognizes literary genres (e.g., poetry, history and law) or literary forms (e.g., figures of speech and parallelism) is not problematic in itself. However, modern literary approaches go well beyond the conventions of literature in a deliberate attempt to impose a philosophy on that literature. The reader begins with a set of assumptions that he imports them into the text from outside. Naturally, these assumptions are rather subjective, being the result of the reader's previous experiences. They, in turn, draw out a reader-specific response. The goal of the literary approach, therefore, is not to arrive at the author's intended meaning but to incorporate the literature into the reader's frame of reference. This implies that there is no fixed meaning, no truth, in the text because each reader's assumptions and, consequently his responses, are always changing. Interpretation becomes nothing more than an interaction between the reader (at what-ever stage of development he finds himself) and the text.3 ilne's true motive for structuring such system is found in his statement when he says, "as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins." Is it truth that is being sought, or just another accommodation to Humanistic thought applied to science?
Two-register cosmologies left their imprint on the form of ancient graphic and literary materials in a variety of ways. A quite literal case of the two-register format is seen in graphic representations like the Assyrian reliefs that picture the king in a lower register, whether driving forward in battle or returning triumphantly, and in a higher register the god in a matching stance. To prove his point that the two-register form is found in Scripture, Klines refers to Job 1 & 2 when he says, "The Book of Job offers a clear instance of the shaping of a piece of literature by the two-layer cosmology. In the prologue, heavenly scenes (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6) alternate with closely related earthly scenes (Job 1:1-5, 13-22; 2:7-10). His application of the two-register myth to Gen. 1 is as follows: "The creation prologue (Gen. 1:1-2:3) presents a theological mapping of the cosmos with space and time coordinates. Both these dimensions exhibit the biblical two-register cosmology, a construct that functions as an infrastructure of the entire account." what Gen. 1:1 affirms is that God created not just the spatial dimensions immediately accessible to man, but the heavens too, that is, the invisible realm of the divine Glory and angelic beings. This interpretation is reflected in the apostle Paul's christological exposition of Gen. 1:1, declaring that the Son created "all things that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers (Col. 1:16; cf. John 1:1-3). Similarly Nehemiah, reflecting on the Genesis creation account, finds a reference there to the invisible heaven of the angels (Neh. 9:6), and the only possible referent is "the heavens of Gen. 1:1 (and the reference to that in Gen. 2:1, if the latter summation does in fact include Gen. 1:1, not just 1:2-31. Kline also refers to Prov. 8:22-23 and Job 38:7 as interpreting Gen. 1:1 as being the creation of the angelic hosts. From this understanding of Gen. 1:1, Kline states the following: "For there (Gen. 1:26) the divine fiat takes the consultative "let us form that reveals the setting to be the angelic council,17 the judicial assembly which is a regular feature in disclosures of the heavenly reality denoted "Spirit" in Gen. 1:2." Now the two-register model is applied to the rest of the Genesis account: "The lower register relates to the upper as replica to archetype. . . . The earthly products of the first three days mirror one or another characteristic of the invisible heaven, the above realm, the realm of light and overarching Glory (Gen. 1:2). The day-light called forth on day one was a replica of that Glory-light. The bright firmament-vault of day two was so much the likeness of its archetype that they shared the same name, "heaven (Gen. 1:8). The lofty trees, the climactic fruit of day three, are used in Scripture as an apt figure for the cosmos (cf. Dan. 4:10-12). With their high spreading branches a realm for the birds of the heaven, they are comparable to the firmament-heaven in which the birds fly (Gen. 1:20), a towering image pointing to the overarching Spirit-heaven above. Moving on from copies of the heavenly kingdom to images of the heavenly King, the second triad of days presents creature kings whose roles in the hierarchy of creation are earthly reflections of the royal rule of the Creator enthroned above. . . . The birds' overshadowing of their nests (Deut. 32:11) and the luminosity of the sun and moon become biblical figures for the Glory-Spirit as a protective covering, the heavenly Sun and Shield (cf. Ps. 84:12 [11]). Culminating the series of earthly replicas of the Creator-King is the final creature of day six, man, the image of God and his holy angels (Gen. 1:26). In this earthling, made like unto the Glory-Spirit with respect to the threefold glory of royal dominion, moral excellence, and (in eschatological prospect) visual luminosity, creaturely reproduction of the heavenly King of kings is perfected.
Biblical View Kline in an attempt to justify the two-register cosmologies appeals to Assyrian mythology which he says was taken from it "imprint" on mankind. However, this can be nothing more than a perversion of the real thing. That is, we know from Scripture there is an invisible realm (where the angels and God dwell) and the visible realm (the physical). However, Scripture nowhere represents the visible as the "type" of the invisible, which is the archtype, whereby the lower register is imitating the higher register "in matching stance." However, his understanding of Gen. 1 is formulated with this mythological understanding. This does not demonstrate a two-register cosmology as defined by the Assyrian myth and how he applies it to Gen. 1 - No "type" and "archtype" is present in Job. Nor, are there actions in one register matched by the actions of a different "register." We simply see the heavenly realm making plans for Job's test that God is about to put him through. This does not support his argument, only that there two different realms: the spirit realm and the physical realm. Just as sound exegesis would not permit us to understand the flood account in terms of the Babylonian's understanding of the flood, so also we ought not to formulate our understanding of the creation account around Assyrian myth. None of the references, from their context, are intended to define Gen. 1:1. He makes the assertion that they refer to Gen. 1:1, but the context doesn't support this imposition. The "heavens" of Gen. 1:1 is defined for us in v. 14-15 where we find the stars, moon and the sun; it is not a reference of the creation of angelic beings as Kline asserts. When one starts a wrong theological path we see here where it leads. Gen. 1:26 is a reference to the Godhead, not the "angelic host." No where in Scripture do we find the "angelic host" participating in creation other than that they were praising God (Job 38:7) while He performed His creative acts. In v. 16-18 God made the greater and lesser lights to rule over the day and night - this is the only place that "royal" language is used (not for the fish or birds); but is never understood as figurative language as replicating the "Glory-Spirit." Even his reference to Ps. 84:12[11] doesn't wash; the Psalms passage has nothing to do with the Genesis account - again Kline is operating under a faulty hermeneutic. The scary part is when Kline says, "the final creature of day six, man, the image of God and his holy angels (Gen. 1:26)." Are we really made in the image of holy angels? Scripture says clearly that man is only made in the image of God; angels are not a part of the equation; verse 27 makes that clear, unless Kline is implying that the angels are a part of the Godhead. All references in the Bible to man being in the image of God make no mention of him also being in the image of angels. This notion however flows from his notion that it was the angelic host with whom God counseled when He made man . . . this is strictly imported from his imagination, not from Scripture. In v. 16-18 God made the greater and lesser lights to rule over the day and night - this is the only place that "royal" language is used (not for the fish or birds); but is never understood as figurative language as replicating the "Glory-Spirit." Even his reference to Ps. 84:12[11] doesn't wash; the Psalms passage has nothing to do with the Genesis account - again Kline is operating under a faulty hermeneutic. The scary part is when Kline says, "the final creature of day six, man, the image of God and his holy angels (Gen. 1:26)." Are we really made in the image of holy angels? Scripture says clearly that man is only made in the image of God; angels are not a part of the equation; verse 27 makes that clear, unless Kline is implying that the angels are a part of the Godhead. All references in the Bible to man being in the image of God make no mention of him also being in the image of angels. This notion however flows from his notion that it was the angelic host with whom God counseled when He made man . . . this is strictly imported from his imagination, not from Scripture.
According to Kline, Genesis 2 fixes attention on the lower register and, more precisely, on Eden as it sets the stage for the covenant crisis of Genesis 3. Here again the arrangement of the narrative is thematic rather than strictly chronological. This leads into Kline's discussion of Gen. 2:5, which he says proves that the Gen.1 account cannot be understood as a literal six day period. Accordingly, Gen. 2:5a says that at a certain time and place within the creation process vegetation did not yet exist. The language allows that the earth as a whole is referred to but the area particularly in view might be the Eden region, on which the following narrative focuses. Absent then were all plants, whether belonging to the unpeopled wilderness or to cultivated areas. Gen. 2:5b explains why Yahweh-Elohim had not yet produced the vegetation. Rain is needed for the preservation and growth of plants, and God had not yet initiated the rain cycle. . . . man was not on the scene either. It is the assumption underlying this explanation for the timing of the creation of vegetation that confirms the conclusion that the Genesis 1 narrative is not chronologically sequential. Gen. 2:6 tells of the provision of a supply of water, the absence of which had previously delayed the appearance of vegetation. . . . Verse 6 must then be relating a new development, not something concurrent with the situation described in verse 5. For otherwise verse 6 would be affirming the presence of the supply of water necessary for the survival of vegetation at the very time when verse 5b says the absence of vegetation was due to the lack of such a water supply. The context thus demands the translation: "but an 'ed began to rise, an inceptive meaning that is agreeable to the usage of the imperfect form of the verb employed here. Gen. 2:5, however, takes it for granted that providential operations were not of a supernatural kind, according to Kline, but that God ordered the sequence of creation acts so that the continuance and development of the earth and its creatures could proceed by natural means. This unargued assumption of Gen. 2:5 contradicts the reconstructions of the creation days proposed by the more traditional views. Kline continues, Gen. 2:5 reflects an environmental situation that has obviously lasted for a while; it assumes a far more leisurely pace on the part of the Creator, for whom a thousand years are as one day. The tempo of the literalists' reconstructed cosmogony leaves no room for the era-perspective of Gen. 2:5. For according to them the earth would have come into existence by itself as a solitary sphere, not as part of the cosmological process by which stars and their satellites originate, and it would have continued alone, suspended in a spatial void (if we may so speak) for the first three "days of creation. All the vast universe whose origin is narrated on day four would then be younger (even billions of years younger) than the speck in space called earth. So much for the claimed harmony of the narrative sequence of Genesis 1 with scientific cosmology. In short, if the narrative sequence were intended to represent the chronological sequence, Genesis 1 would bristle with contradictions of what is revealed in Gen. 2:5. Our conclusion is then that the more traditional interpretations of the creation account are guilty not only of creating a conflict between the Bible and science but, in effect, of pitting Scripture against Scripture. The true harmony of Genesis 1 and Gen. 2:5 appears, however, and the false conflict between the Bible and science disappears, when we recognize that the creation "week is a lower register metaphor for God's upper register creation-time and that the sequence of the "days is ordered not chronologically but thematically.
Biblical View This certain time is provided for us in v. 4 - "the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." It is the first day of the creation week. Verse 4-7 sets the stage for what follows in the Garden of Eden. Kline assumes that the "day" in v. 4 refers to the week of creation; however, there nothing in the verse that says that it cannot refer to just the first day. In fact, what follows lends itself more readily to this understanding and eliminates any perceived contradictions. This certain time is provided for us in v. 4 - "the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." It is the first day of the creation week. Verse 4-7 sets the stage for what follows in the Garden of Eden. Kline assumes that the "day" in v. 4 refers to the week of creation; however, there nothing in the verse that says that it cannot refer to just the first day. In fact, what follows lends itself more readily to this understanding and eliminates any perceived contradictions. I don't have a problem with what Kline says about this verse; but a few comments I believe are necessary: The midst rising is an obvious reference to day two – 1:6-7. And the vegetation appeared on day 3 – 1:11-12: no problem so far. Three days later man is made who is now able to til the ground as we see later in chapter 2. In addition, the "waw" that begins v. 6 can also be understood to mean "and, so, then, when, now, or, but, that, and many others." Instead of using "but" to present the idea of contrast, the word "then," or even "now" may be used; thereby the whole set of verses from 5-7 can be seen within their proper context without a "problem" being manufactured, and forcing a genre into the text that doesn't belong there, and doing damage to the chronology of chapter 1 that God so carefully presented to His Elect. verses 5-7 set the scene whereby God gives to man the duty to tend the garden that He planted as more specifically described in verses 8-10. It sets the stage for the “work” that man would perform in v. 15; I believe it was not a command, but because man is made in the image of God and God worked in His creative activity, literally, man because he bears God’s image also works; it is in his nature to do so; just as it is for God to do so. (NOTE: this is before the fall; therefore, work is not a part of the curse; though work became more difficult after the Fall – 3:17-19 - “Slothfulness” is one of the curses of the Fall.) Gen. 2:5 does not require a leisurely approach to His creative acts in Gen. 1 as Kline has presupposed and has not proven his point Biblically using sound exegetical methods, but assumes it. In deed, the traditional view does not contradict it in any way, except if one would twist it to conform to atheistic opinions about science as Dr. Kline does. The motive for his Framework myth is clearly seen in this statement. If the separation of day one and day three were “billions of years” a part, I might be inclined to agree with Kline, but we are only talking the difference of a few ordinary days – 48 hours. The same goes with his argument about the survival of vegetation requiring animal activity – what is the big deal. It still wouldn’t violate “natural” processes, if one is stuck on that as a requirement under which God must work. I believe that it has been demonstrated that Gen. 1 and 2:5 do not contradict, no conflict with science, nor the rest of Scripture when a literal six-day chronology of the Gen. 1 is understood. It is the most natural reading of the passage and doesn't import speculation or pagan ideas into the text. Rev. Walker makes a most agreeable observation when he says, "Historically, it has seldom been true that unbelief strolls in the front door of the church announcing itself. It usually sneaks in a little at a time. First an obvious error is tolerated often for the sake of love or harmony. After all, the one who holds the error is a sincere Christian. In time that error becomes the majority opinion. Before long no one can tolerate the truth. At that point, nothing is left. The doctrine of creation in this sense is a key doctrine because it reveals our attitude to the whole of Scripture."4 The Framework mythology is no small matter; it is a serious error that undermines the very nature of Creation and introduce a theology that is totally foreign to what is revealed to us in Scripture.
1Taken from "Notes on the Day-Age Theory" By Mike Stallard, a six-day creationist defending the Biblical account
2Material for this theory was taken from "Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross" written by Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor; hyperlink: ChristianAnswers.Net
3Meredith G. Kline, “Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony,” Westminster Theological Seminary, CA [From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 48:2-15 (1996)]: ©1996 by the American Scientific Affiliation
4Rev. Frank Walker, "Genesis One Versus the Framework Hypothesis," excerpts from a tract published by C.W. Powell, weblink is http://basketoffigs.nstemp.org/Apologetics/framework.PDF; accessed 05/18/03.
