Ryrie's Flexibility:
Rejection of Ussher's Chronology:
Ryrie recognized the limitations of a strict, literal interpretation of Ussher's chronology, which placed creation at 4004 BC. He acknowledged the evidence for a much older earth.
Recent Creation of Humankind:
Despite allowing for an old earth, Ryrie maintained the belief in a relatively recent creation of humankind. This is a key distinction, separating his view from purely evolutionary perspectives.
Multiple Interpretations Allowed:
Ryrie's willingness to accommodate the Gap Theory, Day-Age Theory, and even creation with the appearance of age demonstrates a degree of flexibility. He prioritized the fundamental belief in divine creation over a rigid adherence to a specific timeline.
The Flood's Significance:
He also allowed for the effects of the worldwide flood to have had a large impact on the current state of the earth. This shows a willingness to allow for catastrophism within his model.
Dallas Theological Seminary's Position:
Ryrie's tract, "We Believe in Creation," reflected the official position of Dallas Theological Seminary at that time. 1 This position was characterized by a broad acceptance of various creation models, as long as they upheld the core belief in God's creative act.
1. Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism | National Center for Science Education
Source icon
ncse.ngo
This position allows for people to maintain a high view of scripture, while also allowing for the scientific evidence that has been discovered.
Key Points:
Ryrie's approach reflects a common struggle within evangelical Christianity: how to reconcile biblical accounts with scientific evidence.
His flexibility allowed for a wider range of interpretations within the seminary's theological framework.
It is important to remember that there are many different views of creation within christianity.
In essence, Ryrie's work highlights the complexities of creation theology and the ongoing effort to find a balance between biblical faithfulness and scientific understanding.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles C. Ryrie is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and obtained his doctorate from the University of Edinburgh. He rejects Ussher's chronology but insists that humankind is a recent creation. In his book You Mean the Bible Teaches That? (1974), he admits that Genesis 1:1-2 "may cover an interminably long period of time"—that is, the gap theory. However, he also permits a day-age interpretation and for good measure throws in the effects of the worldwide Flood and creation with appearance of age (pp. 121-122). Ryrie also wrote the tract "We Believe in Creation" (1967), stating the official position of the Dallas Theological Seminary faculty—again, allowing for either gap theory or day-age creationism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. R. DeHaan, a medical doctor, became very well known through his radio Bible class broadcasts. (His son, Richard, now does the broadcasts.) DeHaan's book, Genesis and Evolution (1962) is whole-heartedly creationist. It promotes the gap theory and insists on a literal six-day re-creation. DeHaan summarizes the standard gap theory arguments and announces that various geological strata provide clear evidence of "a great cataclysmic convolution of the earth in the dateless past." He adds one new twist by asserting that the water-covered chaos of Genesis 1:2 must have been frozen, causing the Ice Age, since the sun had not yet been created.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scofield Reference Bible, perhaps the most widely distributed annotated Bible in the English-speaking world, gave the gap theory great prestige. In his note to Genesis 1:1, Scofield states that the "first creative act refers to the dateless past and gives scope for all the geologic ages." Referring to the third day of the "new creation," when God commanded Earth to "bring forth" vegetation, Scofield asserts that seeds probably survived the catastrophic judgment of Genesis 1:2 and were allowed to grow again in the newly reconstituted earth:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We see, then, that God created the heavens and the earth perfect and beautiful in their beginning, and that at some subsequent period, how remote we cannot tell, the earth had passed into a state of utter desolation, and was void of all life. Not merely had its fruitful places become a wilderness, and all its cities been broken down; but the very light of its sun had been withdrawn; all the moisture of its atmosphere had sunk upon its surface; and the vast deep, to which God had set bounds that are never transgressed save when wrath has gone forth from Him, had burst those limits; so that the ruined planet, covered above its very mountain tops with the black flood of destruction, was rolling through space in a horror of great darkness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is thus clear that the second verse of Genesis describes the earth as a ruin; but there is no hint of the time which elapsed between creation and this ruin. Age after age may have rolled away, and it was probably during their course that the strata of the earth's crust were gradually developed. Hence we see that geological attacks upon the Scriptures are altogether wide of the mark, are a mere beating of the air. There is room for any length of time between the first and second verses of the Bible. And again; since we have no inspired account of the geological formations, we are at liberty to believe that they were developed just in the order in which we find them. The whole process took place in preadamite times, in connection, perhaps, with another race of beings, and, consequently, does not at present concern us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible does indicate that God did not create Earth in chaos; if it had been "without form and void," this could only have been the result of Satan's rebellion and the destruction of the former world by God before Genesis 1:3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My own opinion, as published in 1814, is that it [Genesis 1:1] forms no part of the first day—but refers to a period of indefinite antiquity when God created the worlds out of nothing. The commencement of the first day's work I hold to be the moving of God's Spirit upon the face of the waters. We can allow geology the amplest time . . . without infringing even on the literalities of the Mosaic record. . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The relationship between "replenish" and the Gap Theory centers on how the word has been interpreted, and how that interpretation has been used to support the theory. Here's a breakdown:
The Gap Theory:
The Gap Theory proposes that there was a significant period of time, or "gap," between Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.") and Genesis 1:2 ("The earth was formless and void...").
This gap is theorized to account for the vast ages of geological findings and the existence of fossils, potentially including dinosaurs.
Some versions of the theory suggest that a pre-Adamic world existed during this gap, which was destroyed by a cataclysm, possibly due to the fall of Satan.
"Replenish" and the Gap Theory:
Proponents of the Gap Theory have sometimes pointed to the King James Version's use of "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 ("...replenish the earth...") as evidence for their view.
They argue that "replenish" implies a "re-filling," suggesting that the earth had been previously filled and then emptied.
This "emptying" would correspond to the cataclysmic event that supposedly occurred during the gap.
Therefore, God's command to Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth would mean that they were to refill it after this prior destruction.
The Counterargument:
Linguistic analysis has shown that the word "replenish" in the KJV, at the time of its translation, primarily meant "to fill," not necessarily "to refill."
The Hebrew word from which "replenish" is translated simply means "to fill."
Therefore, the argument that "replenish" supports the Gap Theory is based on a misunderstanding of the word's historical meaning.
Modern bible translations have often replaced the word replenish with the word fill, to remove this misunderstanding.
In Summary:
The connection between "replenish" and the Gap Theory is based on a particular interpretation of the word that is now widely considered inaccurate.
While the Gap Theory itself remains a topic of debate within certain theological circles, the linguistic argument based on "replenish" has been largely discredited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's true that "replenish" and "restore" share some semantic overlap, but they also carry distinct nuances. Here's a breakdown of their comparison and contrast:
Replenish:
- Core Meaning:
- Primarily means to fill something up again, to supply something that has been used up.1 It emphasizes the act of refilling or renewing a quantity.2
- Focuses on bringing something back to a full or sufficient level.
- Emphasis:
- Deals with quantity and supply.3
- Often associated with refilling resources, like stocks, supplies, or energy.4
- Example:
- "Replenishing the stock on store shelves."
- "Replenishing ones energy after a workout."
Restore:
- Core Meaning:
- Means to bring something back to its original or former condition. It emphasizes the act of returning something to a previous state of being.
- Focuses on returning something to its proper or healthy condition.
- Emphasis:
- Deals with condition, state, or quality.5
- Often associated with repairing, recovering, or revitalizing something.6
- Example:
- "Restoring an old painting."
- "Restoring peace to a troubled region."
- "Restoring a persons health."
Comparison:
- Both terms involve bringing something back to a desired state.
- Both can be used in contexts related to resources or conditions.
Contrast:
- "Replenish" focuses on refilling a quantity, while "restore" focuses on returning something to its original condition.
- "Replenish" is more about filling a void, while "restore" is more about repairing damage or returning to a previous state of being.
In essence:
- If something is empty, you replenish it.
- If something is damaged, you restore it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To understand how the connotation of "replenish" has evolved, it's helpful to delve into its etymology and historical usage:
Origins and Early Meanings:
- Latin Roots:
- The word "replenish" traces back to the Latin "plenus," meaning "full."
- It entered English through Middle French "replenir."
- Early Usage:
- In its earlier usage, particularly in the KJV, "replenish" primarily meant "to fill." So, when Genesis 1:28 says "replenish the earth," it essentially meant "fill the earth."
- This sense of "filling" was quite broad, encompassing populating, stocking, and generally making something full.
Shift in Connotation:
- Emphasis on "Again":
- Over time, the "re-" prefix in "replenish" began to carry more weight, emphasizing the idea of "again."
- This led to the modern connotation of "replenish" as "to fill or build up again."
- Modern Usage:
- Today, we typically use "replenish" to refer to restoring something that has been depleted. For example, we replenish our energy, our supplies, or our resources.
- This nuanced meaning, with its focus on restoration, is somewhat different from the broader "filling" sense in the KJV.
Key Factors in the Evolution:
- Language Change:
- Language is dynamic, and word meanings naturally evolve over time.
- Shifts in cultural contexts and usage patterns contribute to these changes.
- Precision and Nuance:
- As language develops, words often acquire more specific and nuanced meanings.
- The shift in "replenish" reflects this trend, moving from a general term for "filling" to a more precise term for "restoring."
In essence, while the KJV used "replenish" primarily in the sense of "fill," modern English emphasizes the idea of "filling again," highlighting restoration and renewal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's important to understand that the word "replenish" in the King James Version (KJV) has a slightly different connotation today than it did in 1611. Back then, it primarily meant "to fill." With that in mind, here are five verses from the KJV that use the term:
- Genesis 1:28:
- "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
- Genesis 9:1:
- "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."
- Isaiah 2:6:
- "Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers."1
- Jeremiah 31:25:
- "For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul."
Key point:
- As noted before, the word "replenish" in these verses, especially in Genesis, essentially means "fill." Modern translations often use "fill" in these passages to avoid potential misunderstandings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Ethical Considerations:
- Intergenerational Equity:
- This principle emphasizes our responsibility to future generations.1 "Replenishing" the earth means ensuring that they inherit a planet capable of sustaining them, not one depleted of resources.
- It raises questions about how much we should consume today versus how much we should preserve for tomorrow.
- Environmental Justice:
- This addresses the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens.2 "Replenishing" should involve addressing existing inequalities, where marginalized communities often bear the brunt of environmental degradation.3
- It requires considering who benefits from resource use and who suffers the consequences.
- Intrinsic Value of Nature:
- This perspective recognizes that nature has value independent of its usefulness to humans.4 "Replenishing" goes beyond simply maintaining resources for our own benefit; it involves respecting the inherent worth of ecosystems and biodiversity.
- This challenges the idea that nature is merely a commodity to be exploited.5
- Stewardship and Responsibility:
- Many ethical frameworks emphasize our role as stewards of the earth, with a moral obligation to care for it.6 "Replenishing" becomes a matter of fulfilling that responsibility, acting as caretakers rather than simply consumers.
- This concept is often found within many religious and philosophical world views.7
- The Problem of Anthropocentrism:
- Many ethical arguments address the problem of placing humans at the center of all value considerations. An ethical view of replenishing the earth requires moving away from this view, and giving value to all parts of the natural world.
How These Dimensions Intersect:
- These ethical considerations are interconnected. For example, environmental justice is closely tied to intergenerational equity, as marginalized communities are often the most vulnerable to the long-term effects of environmental damage.8
- They also challenge the assumptions of traditional economic models, which often prioritize short-term gains and individual self-interest.
This could symbolize the uncertainty and questions raised by the apparent conflict between scientific findings and traditional interpretations of Genesis, leading to the development of theories like the Gap Theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment