VALEDICTION
Joined : 13 Apr 2007
Posts : 926
|  Subject: Re: Another Creation question  Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:44 pm | |
| Yeah, I'm sure we've discussed this to some degree in the past.
A.W. Pink's Gleanings in Genesis makes for an interesting read. The first two chapters of this book are devoted to Genesis 1, with Chapter One being entitled, "Creation and Restoration", and Chapter Two being called, "Christ in Genesis 1". Great stuff, chock full of jaw-dropping insights.
Dr. Pink, who had a distinct appreciation for the Gap Theory, points out that God's work in Genesis 1 could well have been an act of restoration of earth... and that, in type, Genesis 1 illustrates the restoration of mankind.
In his words:
| Quote: | | In "six days", that is, literal days of twenty-four hours duration, the Lord completed the work of restoring and re-fashioning that which some terrible catastrophe had blasted and plunged into chaos. |
I also like how he words this:
| Quote: | "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", and we cannot but believe that these creations were worthy of Himself, that they reflected the perfections of their Maker, that they were exceedingly fair in their pristine beauty. Certainly, the earth, on the morning of its creation, must have been vastly different from its chaotic state as described in Genesis 1:2. "And the earth was without form and void" must refer to a condition of the earth much later than what is before us in the preceding verse. It is now over a hundred years ago since Dr. Chalmers called attention to the fact that the word "was" in Genesis 1:2 should be translated "became", and that between the first two verses of Genesis 1 some terrible catastrophe must have intervened. That this catastrophe may have been connected with the apostasy of Satan, seems more than likely; that some catastrophe did occur is certain from Isa. 45:18, which expressly declares that the earth was not created in the condition in which Genesis 1:2 views it.
What is found in the remainder of Genesis 1 refers not to the primitive creation but to the restoration of that which had fallen into ruins. Genesis 1:1 speaks of the original creation; Genesis 1:2 describes the then condition of the earth six days before Adam was called into existence. To what remote point in time Genesis 1:1 conducts us, or as to how long an interval passed before the earth "became" a ruin, we have no means of knowing; but if the surmises of geologists could be conclusively established there would be no conflict at all between the findings of science and the teaching of Scripture. The unknown interval between the first two verses of Genesis 1, is wide enough to embrace all the prehistoric ages which may have elapsed; but all that took place from Genesis 1:3 onwards transpired less than six thousand years ago. |
|
|
bgast1
Age : 57
Joined : 06 Apr 2007
Posts : 227
| | Subject: Re: Another Creation question Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:17 pm | |
| Ok, let's accept that the earth could have been created twice. I discussed that too with my pastor but I don't recall what we discussed. I've heard of this account of two seperate creations many times over the years.
But, what we have illustrated in Genesis 1:2 is an earth which is formless and void (NASB). I do not understand then how there would be anything at all for scientists to examine whatsoever. I'm wondering if Dr. Pink is suggesting a way in which to mix Creationism and Evolution.
I did not check the link yet, but I will now. Hmmmm. if the underlining is a link, my computer will not let me access it. |
|
VALEDICTION
Joined : 13 Apr 2007
Posts : 926
| | Subject: Re: Another Creation question Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:50 am | |
| Actually, that wasn't supposed to be a link, but since you asked:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis.htm
This subject seems to cause a lot of heartburn nowadays, and there's a lot of superfluous dogma that has been established by folks who fancy themselves creation scientists, but I think you'll find that Dr. Pink takes an entirely different approach, and presents the issue in a simple and concise manner.
His discussion of the matter is well balanced.
He does not pretend to speak from the vantage point of science, but simply from the vantage point of Scripture.
And he does not belong to that camp on the other extreme, that has established an entire doctrine upon their conjectures of what this "former world" was all about.
He simply acknowledges that a prehistoric age must have existed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and that there is no explicit discussion of this age contained within Scripture.
It could have lasted just for a moment. Or it could have lasted for several eons. We simply don't know.
| Quote: | | The bare fact is stated: "In the beginning God created", and nothing is added to gratifiy the curious. The opening sentence of Holy Writ is not to be philosophized about, but is presented as a statement of truth to be received with unquestioning faith. |
Joe |
|
Home
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
