.

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 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 “neo-orthodoxy,” though such idealistic humanism is neither new nor orthodox. It undercuts the foundation of the entire biblical system of truth when it expunges Genesis 1–11. The events of these chapters are recorded in simple narrative form, as though the writer or writers fully intended to record a series of straightforward historical facts; there is certainly no internal or exegetical reason for taking these chapters in any other way.

      Each chapter of Genesis 1–11 leads naturally into the next chapter. In the same way, Genesis 11, which gives the genealogy of the Messianic line down to Abraham, is followed logically by Genesis 12, which presents the first recorded events in the life of Abraham. The latter events are within the period of recorded history, and are now almost universally accepted as factual. The life of Abraham, as the founder of the chosen nation Israel and the ancestor of Jesus Christ, is suspended without background or foundation if Genesis 1–11 is only an allegory.

      Furthermore, the later writers of Scripture refer again and again to these early chapters of Genesis, always accepting them as both factual history and authoritative doctrine. Moses refers to the six-literal-day creation in Exodus 31:17 and to the division of the nations at Babel in Deuteronomy 32:8. Joshua 24:2 accepts the account in Genesis 11 of Abraham’s ancestors. Although the later historical books are naturally more occupied with the histories of their own times, they occasionally refer back to earlier times. Hezekiah speaks of the creation (2 Kings 19:15) and 1 Chronicles 1:1–28 repeats the genealogies of Genesis 5, 10, and 11. After the captivity, Nehemiah likewise refers to the creation (Neh. 9:6). Job several times refers to both creation and the Flood (Job 9:5–9; 12:15; 26:7–13; 31:33; 38:4–7; etc.).

      The Book of Psalms abounds in references to the creation. Psalm 8:3–8 speaks of God giving dominion over the earth to man. Psalm 33:6–9 emphasizes the instantaneous creative acts of God in the beginning. Psalm 90:2–3 speaks of creation and the fall of man. Psalm 148:1–5 tells of the creative acts of God. There are many other such references. Psalms 29 and 104 describe graphically the events during and following the great Flood. Even Proverbs 8:22–31 refers to the creation.

      The prophetical books likewise refer often to the early chapters of Genesis. Isaiah refers both to the creation (40:26; 45:18) and to the Flood (54:9). Jeremiah 10:11–13, 31:35, and 51:15–16 all refer to different aspects of the creation. Ezekiel refers to Noah in 14:14, 20, and Amos also mentions the Flood, in both 5:8 and 9:6. Micah 5:6 refers to the “land of Nimrod,” as does Zechariah 5:11, who speaks of the “land of Shinar,” СКАЧАТЬ