# data[].attributes.body
The Biblical narrative begins with these profound words 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'. (Gen. 1:1). But the Bible's Creation theology is woven through the whole of the scripture! In a small group, read this selection of passages. What do they say about Creation? Can you see any themes emerging?

# data[].attributes.body
Use this to capture your learning and reflections

# data[].attributes.headline
A padlet with information on the ePortfolio

# data[].attributes.subject
A padlet with information on the ePortfolio

# data[].attributes.body
Answer the following questions:​

What has bought you to this Lutheran School?​

What are the joys and challenges with working with children and young people?​

What do you think should make Lutheran Schools stand out from other forms of education?

# data[].attributes.body
This is completely working please choose another area

# data[].attributes.body
Lutheran world federation

# data[].attributes.body
Climate justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Creation - Not for Sale

The LWF sees care for creation as a core calling and recognizes climate change as a matter of justice and human rights. LWF's advocacy for climate justice focuses on the protection of the most vulnerable from the impacts of climate change and holding governments accountable to their climate commitments, intergenerational justice, and interfaith collaboration.

Since the 1970s, the LWF has raised a prophetic voice regarding the ecological and climate crisis through resolutions, statements, and action.

Following the call to advocate for climate justice, member churches and World Service programs have put concrete climate action into place across the communion.

Since 2011 when the UN Climate Change Conference COP17 took place in Durban, South Africa, the LWF has sent delegations to these high-level meetings. Here, young people from the Lutheran communion have been at the forefront of LWF's engagement and critical advocates for climate justice.

Action for Justice Forum for Climate Justice

The Action for Justice Forum for Climate Justice is the space to convene LWF constituencies for joint discussions, strategizing, and engagement on policy, advocacy, and programmatic work. The forum includes member churches and, where appropriate, country programs and other relevant stakeholders. They work together to support advocacy at national, regional, and global levels to seek constructive ways to attain climate justice and creation care.

The objectives of the Action for Justice Forum for Climate Justice are to

Facilitate sharing and mutual learning among relevant stakeholders within and outside of the LWF

Provide a platform for mutual exchange, dialogue, learning, and shared understanding among LWF member churches and country programs

Provide a platform for joint LWF advocacy campaigns and projects

Provide a forum to convene LWF member churches, country programs, relevant regional or national institutions, inter-governmental and governmental actors, academic institutions, ecumenical and faith-based organizations, civil society actors to analyze contexts, and mapping needs to plan for Action for Justice themes strategically

Promote interactive and long-term partnership for advocacy among LWF member churches, country programs, and relevant stakeholders

Related Campaigns

"The Lutheran World Federation ... furthers worldwide among the member churches diaconic action, alleviation of human need, promotion of peace and human rights, social and economic justice, care for God's creation and sharing of resources."
- LWF's constitution

Delegates

Mr Khulekani Magwazah, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa, South Africa

Ms Fernanda Zùñiga, Lutheran Church in Chile, Chile

Mr Erik Anders Oliver Bohm, Church of Sweden, Sweden

Ms Stephanie Joy Abnasan, Lutheran Church in Philippines, Philippines

Mr Sebastian Ignacio Muñoz Oyarzo, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Chile, Chile

Ms Erika Rodning, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Canada

LWF Staff

Ms Elena Cedillo, LWF Program Executive for Climate Justice,

Ms. Pranita Biswasi, LWF Youth Secretary, India

Event: LWF delegation at COP 25

Website: https://unfccc.int/cop25

Delegates

Mr Khulekani Magwazah, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa, South Africa

Mr Romario Dohman, Evangelical Church of the River Plate, Argentina

Mr Wylie Cook, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, USA

Mr Sindri Geir Oskarsson, The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland, Iceland

Ms Helena Merle Funk, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Northern Germany, Gemany

Ms Beata Anna Kolarczyk, Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland, Poland

Ms Gloria Marthalena Samosir, Protestant Christian Batak Church, Indonesia

LWF Staff

Ms Pranita Biswasi, LWF Youth Secretary, India

Mr Fabián Wilches, LWF Senior Advocacy Officer, Colombia

Event: LWF youth delegation at COP 24

Website: http://cop24.gov.pl/

Delegates

Mr Sam SUKE, Lutheran Church of Australia, Australia

Mr Sikiom Sagenan KISKU POLLOB, Bangladesh Northern Evangelical Church, Bangladesh

Rev. Ida VARTIALA Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, Finland

Mr Lasse SCHMIDT-KLIE, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hanover Germany

Ms Helena Merle FUNK, Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Northern Germany, Germany

Ms Kathrin NATHO Evangelical Church in Central Germany, Germany

Mr Sindri Geir OSKARSSON. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland. Iceland

Mr Edgar TOCLO Lutheran Church in the Philippines, The Philippines

Ms R.B.Sherly PRIYANKA, United Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India, India

Mr Daniel Andy Hoffmann SINAGA, Batak Christian Protestant Church, Indonesia

Mr Khulekani MAGWAZAH, Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Africa, South Africa

LWF Staff

Ms. Caroline Bader, LWF Youth Secretary, Germany

Event: "Creation- not for sale" - LWF delegation at COP 23

News

Website: https://cop23.com.fj/

Delegates

Mr Biruk Kebede ABETEW , LWF Ethiopia, Ethiopia

Ms Mami Brunah ARO SANDANIAINA , Malagasy Lutheran Church, Madagascar

Mr Pascal KAMA, The Lutheran Church of Senegal, Senegal

Ms Lily KWAW, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Ghana, Ghana

Ms Ditebogo Caroline LEBEA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa, South Africa

Mr Khulekani Sizwe MAGWAZA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa, South Africa

Ms Mari SALL Mari SALL, LWF Mauretania, Mauretania

Mr Cedrick YUMBA KITWA , Evangelical Lutheran Church in Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo

News

Website: http://www.cop22.org/

Delegates

Ms Pranita Biswasi, Jeypore Evangelical Lutheran Church, India

Mr. Jeffrey Buhse, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Canada

Ms. Paula Charlotte Göhre, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria, Germany

Mr. Pascal Kama, Lutheran Church of Senegal, Senegal

Ms. Vera Tkach, Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in Russia and Other States, Russian Federation

Ms. Tamesha Martina Watson, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Guyana, Guyana

LWF Staff

Mr. Martin Junge, LWF General Secretary, Chile

Mr. Martin Kopp, LWF Climate Justice Advocacy Officer, France

Ms. Caroline Bader, LWF Youth Secretary, Germany

News

Website: http://www.cop21paris.org/

Delegates

Mr Jeff Buhse, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Canada

Ms Pranita Biswasi, Jeypore Evangelical Lutheran Church, India

Ms Martha Spangler, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, USA

Mr Leiff Andersen, Church of Norway, Norway

Ms Matilda Mattson, Church of Sweden, Sweden

Mr Luis Flores, Lutheran Church of Peru, Peru

Mr Warime Guti, ELC-PNG, Papua-New Guinea

Mr Martin Kopp, Union of Protestant Churches of Alsace and Lorraine, France

LWF Staff

Ms. Caroline Bader, LWF Youth Secretary, Germany

News

Website: http://www.cop20lima.org/

Delegates

Ms Pranita Biswasi, Jeypore Evangelical Lutheran Church-United Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India; India

Ms Raquel Kleber, Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil, Brazil

Mr Martin Kopp, Union of Protestant Churches of Alsace and Lorraine, France

Ms Matilda Mattson, Church of Sweden, Sweden

Ms Rose Stephens-Booker, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, USA

Mr Piotrek Sztwiertnia, Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland, Poland

Mr Elija Zina, Lutheran Church in Liberia, LWF Council member, Liberia

LWF Staff

Ms. Caroline Bader, LWF Youth Secretary, Germany

News

Website: http://www.cop19.gov.pl/

Delegates

Nahun STÜRTZ , United Evangelical Lutheran Church, Argentina

Ms Raquel Kleber, Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil, Brazil

Mr Warime Guti, ELC-PNG, Papua-New Guinea

Ms Anila Esther RAVI SAMSON, United Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India, India

Ms Iwona Anna BARANIEC, Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland, Poland

Mr Chris Böer,Evangelical Lutheran Church of Schaumburg-Lippe, Germany

Mr Jeff Buhse, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Canada

Mr Leiff Andersen, Church of Norway, Norway

News

Website

Delegates

Ms Eun-Hae KWON, Lutheran Church in Korea, South Korea (LWF Council)

Mr Joakim Book Jönsson, Church of Sweden, Sweden

Ms Raquel Kleber, Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil, Brazil

Mr Sean Darryn Kuryszczuk, Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Africa, South Africa

Mr Hierald Edgardo Osorto, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, USA

Mr Mike Lulanga, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Malawi, Malawi

Mr Viktor Liszka,The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hungary, Hungary

LWF Staff

Rev Roger Schmidt, LWF Youth Secretary, Germany

Program

Young people for Ecojustice at the Climate Change Summit in Durban

Goal

Young people have put Ecojustice to the agenda of their churches and societies

Website: http://www.cop17durban.com/

2010's Publications

Creation - Not for Sale ( EN | DE | ES | FR | Estonian )

Fasting for Climate Justice - A Lutheran Perspective ( EN | DE | ES | FR )

Climate Hero - The Climate Justice Game of the Lutheran World Federation Youth

LWF together green and just ( EN )

LWF together the Earth needs you ( EN | DE | ES | FR | BA )

2000's Publications

Good Creation and Climate Change - A resource for reflection and discussion ( EN )

Good Creation and Climate Change - Spiritual and Ethical Perspectives ( EN )

Climate Change: Facing our Vulnerability ( EN | DE ) -

LWI#5 - Special: Climate Change from the Lutheran World Information PDF edition - 2008

Youth Toolkit on Climate Change ( EN )

Guiding Principles for Sustainable Development ( EN | DE | ES | FR )

1990's Publications

Environmental Guidelines

Concern for Creation - Voices on the Theology of Creation ( EN )

The liberation of creation and the myth of unlimited growth ( EN | DE )

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LWF's advocacy for creation care and climate justice

# data[].attributes.body
What does creation show about God?​

What are the things that are confronting or comforting?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEJkg3ndti0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jay Seegert: “Creation vs Evolution: The Cases from Science”: JAY SEEGERTJay holds degrees i...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Everybody these days, it seems, has a different take on the Creation Account. The scientific community once had Christendom running scared with what seemed to be fairly conclusive evidence that the Bible's understanding of the origin of the universe held no ground in reality. Not to be vanquished so easily, many Christians began searching for answers - for ways they might accord Scripture with science.

Differing perspectives on the Creation have existed for ages, but recently, the fervor seems to have raised a notch with people becoming increasingly dogmatic on the side of their own perspective. Christians of one perspective are becoming skeptical of the genuineness of the salvation of those who hold to another interpretation.

With all this in mind, it should be of benefit to summarize the differing views (while supplying bibliographies of additional resources for further studies) and allow Christians to make their own choices as to which view accords best with Scripture.

Facing the modern Christian are two distinct methods for interpreting the Creation Account: by consulting the discoveries of science or by consulting Scripture's testament to itself. Within both methods are several perspectives and so we will treat each one briefly. Because the science-based methods focus more upon interpreting God's Word through the light of empirical data rather than through the hermeneutical demands of context, we will refer to all these methods as "theories," while exegetically-based methods, being naturally more rigorous and adherent to the discovery of the true meaning of Scripture, will be called "interpretations." We shall also begin with the science-based method and then proceed to deal with those views which are more thoroughly entrenched in Scripture in greater depth.

Science-based views interpret Scripture through the filter of their experience of general revelation. They see the sciences and their own observations of the world around them saying something incontrovertible; and so, they interpret Scripture in light of these things. Truly, the pressure of the scientific communities - both Christian and secular - can seem overwhelming and nobody wants to feel they have their head in the sand and are ignoring plain evidence. But never should the Christian allow current scientific understanding to supercede the historical and literary intent of the authors of Scripture. We will here discuss briefly several of these viewpoints, but dismiss them in the end as being built upon eisegesis.

Theistic Evolution

Surrendering the historicity and honesty of Scripture beyond all other popular viewpoints, theories of theistic evolution force interpreters to mythologize the Genesis narrative. While maintaining that God did truly maintain control of all creative processes, the view strips Scripture of its accuracy by positing that Adam was not arrived at by fiat creation but through thousands of years of natural evolutionary process aided and directed by a divine touch. The specifics of the view are beyond the scope of this treatment as they question seriously traditional and conservative methods for the interpretation of Scripture-as well as its ability to function as an authority for the believer.

Gap Theory

When the scientific community began discovering evidence to support long geological eras in the 18th century, a segment of Christendom felt compelled to syncretize their interpretation of Scripture with this newfound empirical data. Motive askew, they postulated that the universe was already in existence for an indeterminate duration before the Creation Week began (and hence allow for a very old earth, but are able still to maintain God's recent fiat creation of mankind).

A once-popular revision of this theme is the Restoration Theory. Proponents of this version of Gap Theory believed that the universe was created full-form and populated only to be decimated by a cataclysmic war led between God and Satan. This war left the earth a wasteland, "formless and void" (and explains why we find fossilized dinosaur bones that seem to be millions of years old). So then, by theory, the recent Creation Week would be a re-Creation or restoration of a world that was once destroyed.

The hinge upon which Gap Theory turns is the interaction between verses 1, 2, and 3 of Genesis 1. But while the theory's suppositions are imaginative and interesting to ponder, they really must be forced upon the text - and are forced upon the text for a poor reason. A clear example of this eisegetical pattern of interpreting Scripture in light of science can be found in the following quote from a Gap Theory supporter:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" ( Rom 5:12)

But under Adam's feet, entombed in the sedimentary rocks of the planet, was God's testimony to the reality of the existence of death long before Adam; the fossil record; the evidence of a previous world that was destroyed and wiped off the face of the old earth.

This is a distressing demonstration of the Gap Theory hermeneutic. It is as if the author is saying, "Scripture says death came through Adam, but science says it came earlier, so we ought to change our interpretation of Scripture because science is our ultimate authority." This reliance upon science as a hermeneutic principle is why we will not here give any real consideration to the view's interpretive accuracy.

Bibliography:

Christian Geology Ministry. Johnson, Gaines. 1997-2001. <http://www.kjvbible.org/>

Larkin, Clarence. Dispensational Truth: or, God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fox Chase, 1918

Creation Days. Madsen, Ole. 2007. <http://creationdays.dk/>

Day-Age Theory

Easily one of the most popular of current theories to reconcile scientific evidence with God's Word, the Day-Age Theory takes aim on the Hebrew word for "day": yÃ´m. Stating that the word, while often meaning a 24-hour period, can also refer to an indeterminate duration, these theorists proclaim that a valid (and moreover, proper) literal understanding of the Creation account will interpret each day as an era, or age, lasting a great length of time.

Popular among those who support a Day-Age Theory is a theory of Progressive Creationism by which God, having created the major types of the animal and plant kingdoms at the beginning of the Sixth Day, waits and watches as they evolve naturally within their groups until at the end of this lengthy period referred to as "the Sixth Day," God creates man of the dust by fiat.

Now, while this is a fairly attractive position for many science-minded Christians, it simply cannot be arrived at from a grammatical-historical understanding of Scripture. There is no hermeneutical reason for any Believer to reinterpret Genesis to fit the Day-Age model.

Bibliography:

Boice, James Montgomery. Genesis: An Expositional Comentary - Volume 1 (Genesis 1-11). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1982 and 1998.

Ross, Hugh. Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Navpress, 1994.

--- Creator and the Cosmos : How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Navpres, 1995.

Ross, Hugh, and Gleason L. Archer. "The Day-Age View." The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation. Ed. David Hagopian. Mission Viejo, California: Crux Press, Inc., 2001.

Apparent-Age Theory

Once more relying upon science to form the filter through which we examine Scriptural truth, the Apparent-Age theorists sees a contradiction between science and God's Word and feeling he must reconcile the two, he decides that God must have created the universe to look as if it were very old. After all, he posits, God made Adam full-grown, for what reason should we not believe that He made the rest of the universe old as well?

The Apparent-Age theory falls short in several places. First, it makes a blind speculation upon Scripture - something entirely outside of the revelation God has chosen to give us. Second, though Adam was created as a full-sized human, this does not necessarily mean that he had the wrinkles, cellular degeneration, and evidence of weathering on the day of his creation (and it seems unreasonable to assume he did). And third, the supposition that God creates things to look older than they really are seems to make Him out to be quite a prankster (and a counterproductive one at that!) and even a bit of a liar.

In any case, the Apparent-Age Theory rests upon speculation demanded by science and is not borne out by a clean grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

Bibliography:

Menninga, Clarence. "Creation, Time, and 'Apparent Age'." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 40.3 (September 1988) 160-162.

Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961.M

Punctuated 24-Hour Theory

Strangely incorporating a 24-hour day perspective, the Punctuated 24-Hour Theory tries to have its cake and eat it too by squeezing millions of years (in the form of geological eras) between the days of the Creation Week. The Punctuated theorist feels that God created on the first day, let that stew for eons, created again on a second creative day, let that simmer for a long while, created once more on the third special day, and so forth.

Surely, an interesting hypothesis it is. But one that just does not find any sort of ground in the text of Genesis 1 and so becomes one more theory to dismiss before consideration because as far as this issue is concerned, we, as Christians holding to the supreme authority of Scripture, are only interested in the interpretation of that which God has revealed in His Word.

Scientific Creationism

Often supporting its hypothesis using a Flood Geology, Scientific Creationism says that science demonstrates not that the earth is ancient and weathered by millions of years of natural processes, but that it is a comparatively young creation (generally between 7,000 and 15,000 years old). Using this system, they affirm that yes, the earth is indeed young and Believers can indeed hold to a literal rendering of Genesis 1.

Now while their work may indeed serve an apologetic purpose, this is really no way to come to understand that which of Scripture would speak. The student of Scripture should be able to demonstrate his interpretation of God's Word based upon that Word alone. And so, in the next section, we will look at three methods of interpreting Scripture that find their foundation in the Scriptures themselves (rather than in the fallible witness of natural revelation).

Bibliography:

Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961.

Creation Science Evangelism. Kent Hovind, Ph.D., President. 2001. <http://www.drdino.com>.

Creation Research Society. 1975-2000. <http://www.creationresearch.org>.

Institute for Creation Research. John D. Morris, Ph.D., President. 2001. <http://www.icr.org>.

Interpretations that seek first to understand Scripture as it was written with no concern for the opinions of science are really the only way to properly look at the issues involved in the Creation Account. Now of course science can be useful to serve as a warning that perhaps we may need to re-examine our previous exegesis, but it should never serve any interpretive purpose for us. We should never allow anything but God's Word to dictate our understanding of the matters of God's Word. If Scripture says the world is flat, then the world is flat - no matter what science might say. If Scripture says the world is 8, 000 years old, then the world is 8, 000 years old - no matter what science might say. The only real question then is "What does Scripture say in Genesis 1?"

The following four interpretations attempt to decipher what the Holy Spirit truly meant when He inspired Moses to write his introduction to our Bible. Our examination of them will offer more detail and information than our previous summaries, but the final decisions about which interpretation most accurately reflects the true intent of Scripture will be left to you, the reader, for all of these positions are held to by true and learned Christian men. And with that, the views:

24-Hour Interpretation

Brief Summary:
The most traditional of interpretations, the 24-Hour Interpretation holds that God created all the universe in the space of six, regular solar days. Most will argue against an eternal seventh day of rest, but the view is not necessary to the interpretation.

Argument:
A straightforward reading of the text most consistently supports the 24-Hour Interpretation. When one comes to the text for the first time, their immediate and natural conclusion will be that Scripture is speaking of a regular six-day period in which God gradually created everything from nothing. Verse 1 is generally seen as a summary of the Creation Week, rather than a chronological event occurring prior to the Creation Week. God's purpose in creating over the course of a human week is one of love, knowing that His people would readily identify with the cycle of days.

One of the interpretation's strongest arguments is one from silence: while a figurative interpretation of the Creation Days is not impossible, it is believed entirely unmerited, for nowhere does Scriptural discussion of the Creation indicate or support any sort of figurative rendering. Moreover, the interpretation holds that those who suspect different meanings for the Hebrew word for "day" ( yÃ´m) "have no reason, other than cosmological assumptions, for construing [it] to mean anything other than a normal day" .

And finally, standing on both a strong tradition and a simple (though certainly not simplistic) rendering of the text, the 24-Hour Interpreter believes the final and considerable burden of proof sits in the lap of those who would contravene such a venerable position.

Supposed Problems:

The seeming temporal recapitulation of Day One and Day Four confuses a chronological reading of the days.

The eternality of the Sabbath offers evidence for a figurative understanding of the Creation Week.

The possibility that Genesis 1:1 is not a summarization, but rather, an event preceding the Creation Week.

An argument from silence is inadequate to prove that the Creation Days are not figurative.

The dischronologization and recapitulation present in Genesis 2 present difficulties for a chronological, 24-hour interpretation.

Bibliography:

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: Volume 1 (Genesis). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998.

Duncan III, J. Ligon, and David W. Hall. "The 24-Hour View." The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation. Ed. David Hagopian. Mission Viejo, California: Crux Press, Inc., 2001.

Jordan, James B. Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One. Canon Press, 1999.

--- "Biblical Chronology." Biblical Horizons. Oct â€" Dec 1997.

"Six-Day, Literal Creation: Essential to the Faith" (entire issue). Chalcedon Report. No. 398 (September 1998).

Framework Interpretation

Brief Summary:
Provoked by exegetical considerations, the Framework Interpretation sees the Creation Week as a topical guide unconcerned with a real chronology. Dividing the works of Creation into two triads, Moses presents his audience with a literary device to demonstrate theological truths of covenant promises and the role of the Sabbath.

Argument:
Although the fiat creative events ("Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light") refer to actual historical events that actually occurred, and the Creation Week is presented in normal, solar days, the Creation Account really functions as a literary structure presenting the acts in a nonsequential, topical order. The purpose for this is theological.

The Framework Interpretation sees the six creative days dividing easily into two parallel sets of three (that is, two triads). The first triad - Days One, Two, and Three - deals with the creation kingdoms (or realms), while the second - Days Four, Five, and Six - deals with the creature kings (or rulers). A visual representation of this framework follows:

The rulers in the second triad are given rule over their realms (the first triad) at the time of their creations: the luminaries are established to "rule over" the day and night; the birds and fish receive a blessing of dominion over their respective realms ("Be fruitful, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth"); and even man is given this dominion over his realm specifically ( cf. Genesis 2:5) and all the created realms generally ( Genesis 1:26, 28). These realms and rulers are in turn subordinated as a whole under the divine King of Creation in His Sabbath rest on the seventh day. Just as man works six days and consecrates that work to God's glory on the seventh day, so did God create a model for this by bringing the work of His six creative days under divine consecration to His own glory on the Seventh Day.

Not only does this interpretation see a theological frame in the Creation Week, but it sees no need for chronologization inherent in the text. In fact, the interpretation argues fairly sharply against making the Creation Account into a literal 168-hour sequence. Beside literary support (in the form of parallelism between Days One and Four, the chiastic nature of Days Two and Five, and dischronologization throughout), the Framework Interpretation applies God's seeming use of ordinary providence in Genesis 2:5-6 to demonstrate that such providence is likely active throughout God's creation of the universe.

This is a brief sketch of a multi-faceted interpretation and the sources below are recommended to garner a more accurate understanding of the view.

Supposed Problems:

The Fourth Commandment seems to demand a regular 168-hour Creation Week to base its command upon.

The difficulty of relating the view is seen as a distinct disadvantage.

Though there is evidence for dischronologization in related passages, this does not necessitate a nonsequential view of the Creation Account.

Just because the Days arrange themselves into theologically relevant triads doesn't mean they can't behave literally as well.

Bibliography:

Mark Futato, "Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3," Westminster Theological Journal. 60.1 (Spring 1998) 1-21 (Part One/Part Two).

Irons, Lee. "The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary." Ordained Servant. Vol. 9, no. 1 (January 2000), pp. 7-11

Irons, Lee, with Meredith Kline. "The Framework View." The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation. Ed. David Hagopian. Mission Viejo, California: Crux Press, Inc., 2001.

Kline, Meredith. "Because It Had Not Rained." Westminster Theological Journal. 20.2 (May 1958) 146-57.

--- "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 48.1 (April 1996) 2-15.

Historical Creationism

Brief Summary:
Due to unfortunate choices in translation in the KJV, a historical interpretation of the Creation Account has been overlooked. With the universe already created in Genesis 1:1, the six creative days refer not to the establishment of the universe, but rather, God's preparation of Eden for His people.

Argument:
Most recently proposed by John H. Sailhamer, Ph.D., the view of Historical Creationism hinges on medieval Hebrew interpretations of the Genesis text. Because "heavens" and "earth" should be translated as "sky" and "land," and "formless and void" is better rendered "unihabitable wasteland," the Creation Account presents God's preparation of the Promised Land in the midst of an unyielding wilderness - a land prepared special for His people.

Similar to the Gap theory, Genesis 1:1 indicates the universe created at a time inconsequential to the needs of the Genesis narrative. God prepares a piece of paradise on earth in the midst of wilderness and continually brings His people back to that place of blessing as a tutorial device pointing them to the blessing (and eventually eternal blessing) of God's covenants with them.

The Historical Creationist also contends that most other views of Genesis 1 have been held captive by prevailing worldviews. In modern times, interpreters often push the text to accord with modern scientific views. The Historical Creationist maintains that the 24-Hour Interpretation only became so trenchant because of KJV translators' reliance upon a faulty Platonic cosmogony and their willingness to push their translation into accordance with that view.

Supposed Problems:

Support for such "historical" translations are difficult to find.

Not many modern scholars have lent their support to the view.

Bibliography:

Sailhamer, John H., Ph.D. Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 1996.

Historical Creationism. <http://hometown.aol.com/arkvow/creationism.htm>

To conclude this article, we should remind ourselves that whichever view we decide to support, it must be one that is presented by the Scriptures themselves and not one that we force upon it. And whichever we choose, we must never fail to uphold the historicity and inerrancy of God's Word for it is that upon which the knowledge of our faith is built.

Additionally, it is important - once one decides upon the interpretation he thinks best represents the true meaning of Scripture - to not judge other people for their own views. One's view on Genesis 1 is no more an essential to one's salvation and spiritual well-being than is one's eschatalogical beliefs. There are a number of perspectives on the Creation Week that while not necessarily correct, are not heretical either. We should grant our brethren the same benefit of deciding on an interpretation as we take ourselves.

We hope this brief overview has been helpful. God bless.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nine Views of Creation - Study Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everybody these days, it seems, has a different take on the Creation Account. The scientific community once had Christendom running scared with what seemed to be fairly conclusive evidence that the Bible's understanding of the origin of the universe held no ground in reality.

# data[].attributes.body
Science is very important to understanding the mind of God, but Scripture’s power shows us the heart of God. So before we engage with others or take sides on this debate, let’s look to God’s Word and see His heart for people and how we should treat each other.

# data[].attributes.body
If God created people in His image, what does that mean for me? How does it affect my role with the students?

# data[].attributes.body
Read one of the following articles:​
- Gods Continuing Creation​
- God looks after the universe he created

# data[].attributes.body
Rob Bell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Be Here by Rob Bell - Adam and Eve

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"A Good Day" With Brother David Steindl-Rast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commentary on Genesis 1:1—2:4a - Working Preacher from Luther Seminary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“Community” and “relationship” are “in words” in current environmental and creational discussions.1 All creatures of God constitute a community in relationship. The Genesis creation accounts have important resources for this conversation. What kind of God is depicted in these texts and what is the…

# data[].attributes.body
God restores the brokenness of the human condition…​

Think about your classroom or workspace.  What are some of the stresses or brokenness that is in that “world”​

Take a sticky note and write a simple way you can encourage the restoration of the brokenness of your classroom or workspace? ​

Record this in your e-portfolio

# data[].attributes.headline
Are Religion and Science always at odds?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are Religion and Science always at odds?

# data[].attributes.headline
ISCAST Christians in science and technology

# data[].attributes.subject
ISCAST Christians in science and technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ISCAST - Christianity & Science in Conversation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ISCAST's mission is to engage Australians in constructive conversation between Christian faith and the sciences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is science replacing God? - Lutheran Church of Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following story was awarded second place (silver) in the ‘Best Story by a Single Author’ category at the 2019 Australasian Religious Press Association awards dinner. The story originally featured in the June 2018 edition of The Lutheran.

# data[].attributes.body
2022 - Connect - Creation.pptx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Purpose & Values | Good News Lutheran College | Christian School offering Values Based Education in Melbourne’s Western Suburbs: Wyndham, Werribee, Hoppers Crossing, Tarneit & Truganina.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Good News Lutheran College’s aim is to provide an educational pathway for each student backed by a focus on strong Christian values.

# data[].attributes.headline
(10 mins) Choose one of the following readings , what are some implications for learners, learning  and the learning community within Good News Lutheran College? 

# data[].attributes.subject
(10 mins) Choose one of the following readings , what are some implications for learners, learning  and the learning community within Good News Lutheran College? 

# data[].attributes.body
 the learner  the learning   the learning

# data[].attributes.body
T Christenson

# data[].attributes.body
Choose one of the next four columns and answer these questions.
Inform​

How does the Connections empower

The learner​

The learning​

The learning environment​

Questions​
1 - Brief outline of the connection you chose​
2 - How would you use this knowledge in the classroom? What topics could connect to connection chosen?  ​
3 - How does this connect to Lutheran Education? (Values, Mission statements, Lifelong learners, Service) ​
4 - What questions arose?

Reflection questions

What stood out for you?​

What connections towards Lutheran theological perspectives  and practices have you found?​

How does this relate to connections in education, coworkers, and students?​

Why is it Important to Lutheran Education?​

# data[].attributes.headline
1. (10 min) Read this article, discuss and record your reflection in your ePortfolio.

# data[].attributes.subject
1. (10 min) Read this article, discuss and record your reflection in your ePortfolio.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the deep needs of the world that we are called to address through the process of education?

What kinds of people does the world need in order to serve those deep needs?

What are the real needs of the students we are called to meet through this educational process?

How do we educate such people?

What gifts (and limitations) do we bring to this task?

# data[].attributes.body
The introduction of the Lutheran Education Earth Care Charter places front and center the importance of environmental and sustainable education for all students. ​

​

Beyond this though, the Earth Care Charter is much broader.​

​

It was created so that all members of the community can readily engage with sustainable learning through the six key principles and missions; students, parents and staff can engage with this charter and experience the positive impact they have on the planet.

# data[].attributes.body
How might the connection embed itself in the culture wheel of GNLC?​

Look at the next slide and see the culture wheel and the framework of Lutheran schools.​

What parts of the culture wheel and the framework could relate to your connection?​

​

Finally, in your E-portfolio, answer the following questions:​

Connect : How are the ideas and information from this session connected to what I already know? ​

Extend : What new ideas did you get that extended or broadened your thinking in new directions? ​

Challenge : What challenges or puzzles have come up in your mind from the ideas and information from this session?  ​

# data[].attributes.body
Psalm 148 urges us and all creation to praise the Lord for the beauty and wonder of God's creation, planet earth and all the universe. ​

​

Genesis 1:28. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”​

​

God put this important job for everyone of us how we relate to earth and how we are to use this knowledge as part of our curriculum.​

The LEA developed in consultation with several Lutheran theologians, a charter and a paper dedicated to 6 different principles. It was released at the last Lutheran Education Conference in Adelaide in 2018. Schools were encouraged to use the framework in curriculum, policies and procedures throughout the entire school. ​

# data[].attributes.body
Connect Session 2 Reflections – Creation

1. Describe in your own words, the key learning for you, of the theological concept of Creation

2. Reflect on and describe how your understanding of Creation theology informs, or could inform, you in your role

3. Analyse and describe, how Creation theology is evident in your community and informs the practices and interactions with staff and/or students

4. Identify and describe any questions you have about Creation and/or its application within my Lutheran learning community.

Choose 2 Resources

Identify and provide the link or reference to at least 2 resources and/or learning experiences that resonated with you during this session and discuss how each resource supported you in understanding the concept of Creation.

# data[].attributes.body
Everyone has a story. Our story reminds us of who we are, and who we are becoming. Free to Flourish is the story for Lutheran schools and early childhood services, grounded in Christian beliefs and values and a catalyst for ongoing improvement and innovation. How does this story align with your vision for education?

Making Connections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free to Flourish A story of who we are and who we are becoming Everyone has a story. Our story reminds us of who we are, and who we are becoming. Free to Flourish is the story for Lutheran schools and early childhood services, grounded in Christian beliefs and values and a catalyst for ongoing...