Let the Bible's Plain Speech Speak Plainly!
Genesis 1:2
There are some who postulate a huge gap of time between the first and second verses of Genesis 1. We mention this is another essay briefly. They derive this opinion from a supposed necessity for explaining this verse, specifically the word "without form" and the word "void". These words, they explain, demonstrate that something or someone acted on the original creation of God in verse one and rendered it "without form and void." They postulate a pre-Adamic race that existed long before the garden; or that the war in heaven that resulted in Satan's being cast out affected the creation as well as Satan himself. This view was made quite popular earlier in this century by Donald Grey Barnhouse and the Scofield Bible. That this is not the teaching of this passage, or any other passage in Scripture is not the point of this essay. We wish to speak further on the issue of how we are to approach and understand the Scripture.
The reasoning behind this theory, and others like it, have their roots in a confusion concerning the value and authority of what we see versus what God has said. Men observe in science, in geology and other related disciplines and the observe what appears to be an immensely old earth. Some would estimate it to be billions of years old. An unwary Bible student, or perhaps a well-schooled one who approaches such "scientific" assertions with a lack of care can make a critical mistake. They can, inadvertently I'll allow, develop the idea that the Bible must be reconciled to the observations of science. I believe that, inadvertently (almost certainly not deliberately on the apart of the godly men mentioned at least) the sneaky idea insinuated itself into the back of the mind that somehow science stands as judge over the Scripture. The "science" is accepted as correct and binding, unassailable in its position.
We all like to appear to be intelligent and rational. No one likes to be thought to be a dullard or one who is uninitiated into the world of sophisticated thinking. As science progressed and became more and more of a discipline that affected and interested larger and larger numbers of people, it became popular and desirable to be seen as one who recognized the "value" and the "authority" of the scientific proclamation. Most believers, in theory, would assert the authority of the Bible. Yet, virtually everywhere we look, we see the signs of just such faulty thinking. Science is forever being held up, and the Scripture is asked to be reconciled with its declarations.
The truth of the matter is that we must think in exactly the opposite way. It is not the Bible that needs to be reconciled to the science. Rather, it is science that must be reconciled and judged by the Bible!
The passage in view is an excellent example. If we approach the passage with the conviction that what science has observed about the age of the earth is correct, then we will need to do something with passage regarding the lengths of time involved. However, that is precisely backwards for the Bible student. We dare not take liberties with the text because of what some outside "authority" says. Rather, we must allow the text to say what it says, and then judge our "outside authorities" according to their conformity to Biblical revelation.
This passage teaches just what it appears to teach. That is that God created the world in six literal, consecutive days and then rested on the seventh day. It is useless and even damaging to play "what if" or "what about" games with the passage (or any other passage for that matter). Similarly it is unnecessary to ask "why couldn't it be thus or so" with the various ideas that float around in theological and academic circles. The best and easiest way to understand the text is to allow it simply to say what it says and then to interpret (or reinterpret) our world and the observations made by "science" in light of what the Creator of the Universe has said definitively in His book!
Care To Respond?
Other Devotionals: