have created, judged, and destroyed the world before reforming it in verse 3. From this “first” point, the gap theory suggests, the literal days of creation could progress as stated in Genesis. The three remaining theories also represent creative reinterpretations of the Genesis account. The Revelation theory supposes that the literal, six-day period referred not to actual creation events, but rather a period during which God revealed to Adam what he had actually done over billions of years. The Progressive Creation theory holds that God’s creative activity indeed occurred in six literal days, but that these days were non-consecutive and spanned billions of years. Finally, the Framework theory cites the poetically parallel nature of the Genesis account, and proposes that although creation occurred over a vast amount of time, it is condensed into days for literary purposes (Brown, 2008). Each of these five theories represents a way in which theistic evolutionists accommodate Scripture to express support in human understanding. Biblical Support for Creation Biblical evidence reveals not only the ways that each theory of reinterpretation is not supported by the narrative of Scripture in its entirety, but also the ways in which the Genesis creation account is confirmed by the most influential voices in Scripture. This evidence is found both in linguistic conventions and in thematic consistency, each demonstrating how alternative interpretations of Genesis 1 misuse a text intended for a specific audience with a specific purpose. Though that audience has changed over time from the people of Israel to all people – – its purpose of communicating the truth about God the Creator remains unchanged. The devices of the Hebrew language are perhaps the most important consideration when attempting to interpret the first chapter of Genesis. As discussed, the use of the Hebrew yom, term for a 24-hour period, is the subject of much debate. However, conjecture about its reference to a different period does not take into account the conventions of the language or the use of the
have created, judged, and destroyed the “first” world before reforming it in verse 3. From this point, the gap theory suggests, the literal days of creation could progress as stated in Genesis. The three remaining theories also represent creative reinterpretations of the Genesis account. The Revelation theory supposes that the literal, six-day period referred not to actual creation events, but rather a period during which God revealed to Adam what he had actually done over billions of years. The Progressive Creation theory holds that God’s creative activity indeed occurred in six literal days, but that these days were non-consecutive and spanned billions of years. Finally, the Framework theory cites the poetically parallel nature of the Genesis account, and proposes that although creation occurred over a vast amount of time, it is condensed into days for literary purposes (Brown, 2008). Each of these five theories represents a way in which theistic evolutionists accommodate Scripture to express support in human understanding. Biblical Support for Creation Biblical evidence reveals not only the ways that each theory of reinterpretation is not supported by the narrative of Scripture in its entirety, but also the ways in which the Genesis creation account is confirmed by the most influential voices in Scripture. This evidence is found both in linguistic conventions and in thematic consistency, each demonstrating how alternative interpretations of Genesis 1 misuse a text intended for a specific audience with a specific purpose. Though that audience has changed over time – from the people of Israel to all people – its purpose of communicating the truth about God the Creator remains unchanged. The devices of the Hebrew language are perhaps the most important consideration when attempting to interpret the first chapter of Genesis. As discussed, the use of yom, the Hebrew term for a 24-hour period, is the subject of much debate. However, conjecture about its reference to a different period does not take into account the conventions of the language or the use of the