1)
The Calendar days: Well, what I think personally
is that, this view might be plausible. However, seeing at the narration of
Genesis 1 itself, it seems to me that even if the original audience heard the
days as normal, they couldn’t have thought some events described in certain
days to have occurred within 24 hours period of time. That’s why I don’t count
this view as an obvious or even tenable view of Genesis 1.
2)
Day-Age view: Regarding the Day-age view, I used
to subscribe it in past. The argument or the support for the view usually
emerge from Psalms 90 or 2 Peter 3:8 where it says for the Lord, one day is as
thousands years. Otherwise, some argument follows that the Hebrew word ‘yom’ doesn’t
necessarily have to mean normal day even though its normal usage is for day-light
hour. However, as I mentioned earlier, the original recipients couldn’t have
understood the days as some sort of millions of years at all. Hence, this
approach doesn’t seem to work at all.
3)
The Gap theory: If it means, there is some time
passage in-between Genesis 1:1-2 or 2-3, then it might seem plausible. There
might have been considerable duration between the earth’s form and God’s
initiative action of calling out the light. However, if it means there was some
sort of prior creation in Genesis 1:1 and after some chaotic event before vs.
2, to which the defenders of Gap theory suggest as Satan’s fall and his
rebellion, the earth was under God’s harsh judgment and the original creation
got destroyed and God again restored the whole creation in 6 days following
after vs. 3, such a view doesn’t seem tenable scripturally.
4)
Framework: Well, I would agree a lot with this
view. Here, the basic concept is grounded on literary work in Genesis 1 instead
some sort of chronological documentation. The basic idea follows is that, the author
is just trying to be symmetrical stating the first three days as formation of
realms and next three days as filling of those realms. Well, it does have some
variants like some say the first and the fourth day cover the same time period
and so on while other says they aren’t chronologically arranged but is written
in a symmetrical structure.
5)
Ideal time theory: It is also known as the
appearance of age. What I personally think of this view is that, it is most
probably the worst view of all. It doesn’t have any strength except allowing
God to be hyper omnipotent God but with no certainty. The ideal time theory is
basically telling that the world has illusion of time. God made this world to
appear just old but is young. So, this view makes God a deceiver and general revelation
untenable. Furthermore, we cannot judge at anything and say it’s young or old
just by looking at it. The earth is measured to be old and not observed to be
old.
6)
Intermediate day-age view: It’s just similar to
the day-age view except for the idea that the days are normal days but
separated by long time periods. The idea follows that there is certain amount
of time duration between each days where God’s commands are operating. But this
view doesn’t seem a better option even in place of day-age. Exodus 20:11 stands
problematic to the gaps between days. In addition, I don’t think this view is
drastically different from day-age as it is just shifting the long duration
from day to between days.
7)
God’s days: This view might seem somehow
plausible as the story is from God’s side. As Peter reminds, one thousand years
for God can be just one day, perhaps, the Genesis creation days were from God’s
side. Million years doesn’t even count in his eyes. So, this view might have
some weight and it is also one of many popular views today.
8)
Relative time view: Now this view can be new to
Nepali soil. It is highly a work of science than the work of scripture. It
emerges out of Einstein’s theory of relativity and time-dilation theory. This
view is fascinating amongst all views but pretty hard to understand. This view
takes 6 days to be both literal days and long ages i.e. the earth is relatively
young and old. What plays the dice here is point of reference. From our
reference, the time gets visualized as billions years due to space-time
equation over expansion of the universe whereas from the point where the
universe began expanding, it is merely 6 normal days. Hence, each day
corresponds to billions of years increasing to certain factor until 6th
day. This view seems very interesting but it is hard to get scriptural support
except for 2 Peter 3:8 as mentioned earlier.
9)
Revelatory days: It is an idea that God showed
Moses what he did while creating in form of revelation each day. Hence, 6 days
were revelation days instead days of actual creation. Again, this doesn’t fit
with Exodus 20:11 and no such idea is mentioned despite the fact that God has
done many works through visions. But in this case, it’s hard to get satisfactory.
10)
Cosmic temple: Finally, this view seems more
plausible. I’ve recently come to known about this view. The idea is simply that
God created the heavens and earth as his temple. In Ancient Near Eastern
culture, 6+1 pattern was temple inauguration time period. Hence, the basic idea
of Genesis 1 is that God was setting up his cosmic temple and the description
was functional rather than materialistic. That was how ancient people used to
understand the cosmos unlike us modern peoples. This view also has lots of
support from ancient culture. Another aspect is that the Genesis 1 was a
polemic account against the pagan creation account which involved war between gods
and demons and creation of the world as byproduct. Genesis 1 was implying that
it is God of Israel YHWH who is true and sovereign God all over the cosmos.
There are so many other views but here I have only
highlighted my personal thoughts on popular views of creation account. I am
generally open to all and do not entertain in defending on behalf of any. However,
what I see most possible view is the cosmic temple that best fits the Genesis
1.
.png)
.png)
.png)
0 Comments