Misinterpreting Genesis 1:2

Christians who have been seduced into thinking that it is necessary to accomodate evolution with Christianity have resorted to a number of theories, all of which hinge upon misinterpreting Genesis 1:2: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".

To make this accomodation possible, three theories have been postulated:
The Myth Theory •Generally asserts that Genesis 1-11 is not historical or literal account. •Genesis 1 & 2 contradictory myths. [this clearly belongs to theological liberalism].
The Gap Theory •Large gap of time between Gen. 1:1 1:2. •Creation in Vs 1; Renovation in Vs 2. •Changes “was” to “became” in Gen. 1:2. •BARA/ASAH interchangeable in Gen. 1. •Isaiah 45:18 – formed to be inhabited.
The Day-Age Theory •Each day of Gen. 1 long eons of time.

All of the above are aspects of "theistic evolution" where God did some creating and allowed some evolving. Theistic evolution is certainly an attempt to accomodate "science, falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20-21). 

The Decalogue (10 Commandements) gives the lie to both the Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory: "For in SIX DAYS [no gap] the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exod. 20:11).  Everything stated has always been, and always should be interpreted literally in the Law. The Law cannot be broken, so this account  must not be broken.

Why did God create in six 24-hour days when He could just as easily have done everything "in the twinkling of an eye" (the Rapture)?  Because He foresaw Adam and Eve's disobedience, the curse of the ground, the hard toil for man and beast, and the necessity to bring everything to a stop after six days of hard labour, so that man and beast might rest and be refreshed.

Theistic evolution does tremendous damage to the Christian faith, since everything about a world before the world is pure speculation.  Furthermore, it allows for death before the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and mocks at the death penalty that was consequently imposed on the human race (Gen. 2:17; Rom.5:1-21). Most importantly, it impugns the absolute truthfulness of Christ, since the Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator and the Truth (Jn. 1:1-4; 14:6) certainly took everything written in Genesis literally, including the creation of man (Matt. 19:3-6), as well as the authority of the Law (Torah) (Lk.24:27).

There is no discontinuity between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 if we will simply take it to mean exactly what it says.  Just as with Adam God first took disorganised dust and then created a perfect specimen of humanity (Gen. 1:27;2:7), He took this globe that was ill-defined (without form), empty (void), dark (darkness was upon the face of the deep) and totally covered in water (the deep, the waters) and then reorganized the waters so that the dry land appeared (Gen. 1:9) after first commanding the light to shine out of darkness on the first day, and the firmament to separate water from water (Gen.1:3-10; 2 Cor. 4:6). This light was "cosmic light" (for want of a better term) and different from that of the sun and moon, which were created on the fourth day (Gen.1:14-19).

Let us never forget the allegorical Gospel truth within the first creation. On the first day of the week, the Lord Jesus Christ brought the light of the glory of God in His face by His resurrection (2 Cor. 4:6), which is a "new creation", with the rising of "the last Adam" to undo the transgression of the first Adam, and at the same time abolished the emptiness and darkness of a sin-cursed world by triumphing over sin, death, hell and Satan (Heb. 2:14-16).  The light of the first day represents Christ who is the Light of Life and it also represents the Kingdom of God which is the Kingdom of Light and which is supernatural, while the lights in the firmament (sun and moon) merely represent the natural world. This is why Ecclesiastes repeatedly uses the phrase "under the sun" (Eccl. 1:9) which speaks of the natural man, who is not under the Sun of Righteousness.

Furthermore, belief in creation is an exercise of FAITH, just as belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, both LORD [God] and Christ is an act of FAITH (John. 20:30-31). What saith the Scripture? "Through FAITH we understand that the worlds [not just the earth but the entire universe] were framed by the Word of God, so that thiings which are seen were NOT MADE of things which do appear" (Heb.11:3). This is clearly teaching that the universe was literally made out of nothing.  God simply "spoke the worlds into existence". If we will not believe that, how can we believe that the blood of the Lamb of God washes us from all our sins (Rev.1:5-6) and that believers are actually "kings" and "priests" in the sight of God?

Paul warns us that if we accept the seductions of "science, falsely so called" [some may quibble because the Greek word also means knowledge] we will ultimately PROCEED INTO DOCTRINAL ERROR:

O, Timothy, KEEP THAT WHICH IS COMMITTED TO THY TRUST [the teachings of the Word of God], avoid profane and vain babblings, and OPPOSITIONS OF SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED: which some professing have erred concerning the faith" (1 Tim. 6:20-21).

Today at 04:39 AM LewisWildermuth said this in Post #2

Out of curiosity, being an evil theistic evolutionist and all, what seduction are you talking about? What did science do to seduce me?

Click to expand...

This is addressed to Christians, not non-Christian evolutionists. Since you use the word "evil" I'm not sure where you stand. True science is not the issue. The issue is "science falsely so called".

To answer your question though, the seduction of "science falsely so called" (evolution) is that it attacks the reliability of the Bible right at the begining, and very subtly the truthfulness of Christ, who never questioned anything written by Moses. Evolution says, in essence, that we should disbelieve the first Chapter of Genesis, and by extension, the Holy Bible.

Evolution also dismisses the truth about Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the deception of the Serpent, the disobedience of the first human pair, the curse of sin and death, etc. which are all fundamental to Christianity. If there was no "first" Adam there was absolutely no need for a "last Adam" (Christ).  Do you see how it attacks the very foundations of the Gospel?

I have never seen anything written about evolution by evolutionists that brings God into the equation. So the seduction is that of UNBELIEF -- not taking God at His Word and even more seriously DELIBERATELY PUTTING HIM OUT OF THE PICTURE.  If we do not take Him at His Word right from the beginning, how will we do so in the book of Revelation?

To all above who took the time to read and respond, Thank You.

1. The first thing that I would like to say in response is that there is a vast difference between true science, which discovers the existings laws of nature through hypotheses and establishes them through experimental data, and "false science" based on pure speculation. I am a trained scientist in one of the natural sciences, so I am not speaking from any ignorance of natural science.

2. Evolution is indeed "science falsely so called" and while the Greek word "gnosis'' also applies to knowledge regarding the natural realm it can also apply to knowledge which is esoteric and metaphysical. To assume that the Holy Spirit did not prophetically guide the KJV translators to use the word "science" instead of knowledge is to limit God. God knew in advance that evolution would at its heart be an "OPPOSTION of science falsely so called", so to try and limit gnosis to simply knowledge is to fail to understand how God used common Greek words and gave them a theological meaning (check the word Gospel as an example).

3. It is reasonable to attempt to reconcile true science with the Bible and true science can always be thus reconclied. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICT BETWEEN TRUE SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE until men choose to appear wiser than God. The Bible, though not a scientific treatise, is God's Word, far above anything man can produce. So scientists need to be like the great genius Isaac Newton, who revered the Bible and understand that with all his genius he was just a little boy picking pebbles along the vast ocean of God's creation. You are assuming that true science is being rejected by creationists because they reject false science. That is not the case. True science will always be true science, since after all it follows God's natural laws, whether in chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology, or what have you. Geology has its limits, and geology assumes "uniformitarianism", and totally ignores the worldwide catastrophic flood of Noah's day, because its account is not in a "science textbook" but is under "theology". The "Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb will clear this up. "Evolutionary science" is not science. It is either pure speculation or pure unbelief.

4. "If there was no Adam then God cannot love us? God cannot try to reach us? Why do you limit God so?" That is to totally misunderstand what I said. If we are to believe evolution we must disbelieve in a real first man called Adam, since evolution insists that the human race originated in southern Africa and from other primates. So who are you going to believe? If there was no Adam there was no need for the Gospel.

4. "Then you have never read Darwin’s work have you? Darwin repeatedly mentions the creator." I have read Darwin's Origin of the Species, and no where does he say that he believes that the Genesis account of creation is absolutely true. If anything his goal was to overthrow it. If you can bring actual evidence to the contrary, please do so.

5. "These sciences show us that the Earth was not created as we see it today and that it has been a long road to get to what we see in nature and the history of the planet today." Please take the time to read the Genesis Flood and it will give you an adequate explanation about the "apparent' age of the earth. Again, Carbon-14 dating cannot establish any date beyond ~6,000 years, and Bible chronology takes us back to ~6,000 as the date of the creation of Adam. This is thoroughly documented in Martin Anstey's book on Bible chronology. so there is no "long road" other than a hypothesis.

6. "I refuse to believe that God is lying to us through his creation." That was never implied. But when it comes to a choice between creation and Revelation, Revelation always wins out for those who are spiritual. "For the invisible things of Him from THE CREATION are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse" (Rom.1:20). Creation teaches us that God is the Almighty Creator. So God would never lie through His creation. But what if man perverts the truth and claims that everything happened by chance and random events? That all of a sudden atoms of C, H, N, and O simply organized themselves into protein molecules, then strands of DNA, then protozoa, which became the common ancestor of all creatures from bacteria to mankind? That's the time to leave pseudo-science and go to Revelation.

7. "By only accepting a literal interpretation of the bible, it would mean that God has lied to us about creation." How do you arrive at this conclusion? Where is there incontrovertible proof in the Bible that there was a huge gap between Gen.1:1 and 1:2? No, actually when you go to the Ten Commandments, they have always been and always will be interpreted literally -- by devout Jews, by the Lord Jesus, by the apostles. Do you interpret them literally? If not, you are denying the truthfulness of Christ, for He said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt.5:17). It is in the Ten Commandments that we read: "For in six days [NO GAP WHATSOEVER], the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the seveth day, and hallowed it" (Exod.20:11). If the notion of a gap or a day-age had even appeared, this commandment would be nullified, since it speaks of six literal 24-hour Hebrew days, beginning at 6:00 pm. and ending at six 6:00 p.m. and commanding the Hebrews to hallow the seventh literal 24-hour day as a day of rest. Then evolution and uniformitarianism came along so that Christians had to resort to the subterfuge of changing this LITERAL interpretation into something allegorical. Do you see now where the damage comes in? Do we believe God or man?

8. "If the Gap theories still maintain that each plant and animal was specially created, it is not consitent with evolution". True. It is an attempt to accept the bulk of the creation account but leave a Gap between Gen.1:1 and 1:2 because of geological appearances. By doing so, the Gap Theory says "The Ten commandments are a lie" since they do not reveal the Gap. It also says that there was a creation before the creation, which means "Moses also lied in Gen. 1-2". It also says that there was death before the time when death came by Adam (Rom. 5:12-21) therefore "Paul lied". It also says that Satan was on this planet and brought about the "chaos" during the Gap period, therefore "John the Revelator lied" (Rev.12:1-17). Do you see what damage it does to the Gospel?

Yesterday at 04:04 PM wblastyn said this in Post #16
No, it refers to Gnosticism not evolution:

Click to expand...

Why should it be so difficult to accept that "gnosis" applies to BOTH false metaphysical knowledge (Gnosticism) and false physical knowledge (evolution).  Since evolution makes God a liar, it is in itself A LIE which speaks the same lie as the Father of Lies "Yea, hath God said...? (Gen.3:1)  "Ye shall not surely die... but be as gods" (Gen. 3:5). The first lie applies both to evolution and Gnosticism and the second primarily to Gnosticism:


Pseudo-scientific evolution says "Yea, hath God said..?"

• That He created everything in just six days?
• That all creatures were separate and distinct from each other, and do not have a common ancestor?
• That man was a special creation "in the image of God"?
• That man was able to communicate with his Creator from the day that he was created?
• That God not only created life forms on earth but that He spoke the worlds into existence?

Pseudo-spirituality -- "philosophy and vain deceit" (Gnosticism) says (Colosssians 2:8-23):

• You are not a sinner, but a "god" in the making
• Esoteric knowledge is the means of salvation, not the blood of Christ
• Christ Himself is nothing but a highly evolved angel
• Worshipping of angels is spiritual
• Acestism is spiritual
• Dietary prohibitions are spiritual

The theory of evolution was designed to cause men to reject the authority, the reliability, and the accuracy of Scripture.  Theistic evolution teaches that believers must speculate about matters which are critical to sound doctrine. Everything about the Gap Theory and the Day-Age theory blatantly controverts what is specifically and literally taught in the Ten Commandments regarding six literal, consecutive 24-hour Hebrew days which begin at sunset and go to sunset.  That in itself should make us extremely wary, since the Ten Commandments are supreme in Scripture [under Christ supernaturally transformed into "AGAPE" in the believer].

Yesterday at 07:47 PM notto said this in Post #18
Ezra,
Was geology also designed to cause men to reject the authority, the reliability, and the accuracy of scripture as well?
Geology was used to falsify a young earth and world wide flood long before evolution was investigated by science.

Click to expand...

In one sentence, geology folows evolutionary theory, and if evolutonary theory reject the authority of Scripture, then that also follows. It is not necessarily deliberate, but by consciously excluding God from the equation, "science" becomes pseudo-science. A genuine scientist can worship the living God and praise Him for His natural laws.  Also believe that God did not even need six seconds to create the universe. This quote below from Jack C. Sofield on the Gap Theory (available on the Internet) summarizes geology's position.

"...The geologic ages represent the time scale of the standard geologic column. This so-called “column” is composed of animal and plant fossil remains found in layers of sedimentary and igneous rock. These remains are arranged in layers and interpreted by geologists and paleontologists to present a record of gradual developmental sequences that propose to demonstrate the gradual evolutionary change of simple forms of animal or plant life into different, more complex forms. The record of ascendancy is thought to be from simpler forms in very ancient times to the more complex forms in modern times. Figure 1. shows a simplified diagram of the geologic column with the postulated life forms and their assumed age eras. It is most important to understand that in the “geologic column” the ages of the various layers are determined by the <I>form of the fossil remains</I> found therein. Older levels in the column are “old” <I>only</I> because they contain what are believed to be simpler, more primitive, less developed or incompletely evolved life forms. The invertebrates are assumed to have evolved first, followed by fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals in that order. It should be obvious that the basis of the structure and arrangement of the geologic column is the concept of slowly evolving life forms which in reality and fact is the THEORY OF EVOLUTION as proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859.

One can easily disclaim his or her adherence to, or belief in, evolution, but acceptance of the geologic column with its attendant “ages” contradicts this claim. The situation is an either/or one. As the old adage so well expresses it, “one cannot have his cake and eat it too.”