The Six-Days of Creation: Some Modern Interpretations of the Creation Week in Genesis One
Posted by deangonzales on November 2, 2009
In light of the claims of modern science, many have also moved away from a more literal reading of the chronology of the creation week in Genesis 1. A survey of the relevant literature reveals at least eight new ways to interpret the “six days.” Because we live in the age of modern science and because a growing number of evangelical scholars espouse these newer interpretations, I’d like to make my readers aware of these new approaches to the six days of the Genesis creation account.
1. The Primitive Science view
Many modern scholars see a genuine contradiction between the Bible and modern science. Consequently, they view the Genesis account of creation as a primitive and erroneous attempt to describe the origin of the universe.1 Some conservative scholars, like Benjamin Warfield, have tried to harmonize this interpretation with an evangelical view of Scripture. Warfield argued, for instance, that an inspired writer could “share the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun; and, it is not inconceivable that the form of his language when incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a presumption.”2 More recently, this view has been defended by Paul H. Seely3.
2. The Mythological view
Other modern scholars have compared the Genesis account with other mythological accounts of creation found in ancient Near Eastern literature.4 After highlighting certain parallels between Genesis and these creation accounts, they posit the idea that Moses simply borrowed from the literature of his day, and then modified that literature to fit his own monotheistic theology.5
3. The Day-Age view
One of the earliest attempts to harmonize the long ages demanded by science with the teaching of Genesis was the Day-Age view. The Day-Age view points out that the Hebrew word for “day,” יום, yom, doesn’t always refer to a literal 24-hour day. For example, in the very Genesis account the term is used in at least two others ways. In Genesis 1:5 the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to the period of daylight as opposed to the period of darkness or night. In this sense, the term “day” is used to refer to a period less than 24 hours. In Genesis 2:4 the term yom refers to the entire period of creation: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day (יום) that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” Even in English we can refer to “the day of horse-drawn carriages” or “the customs of Christ’s day,” and mean a period much longer than a mere 24-hours. So on the basis of the flexible meaning of the Hebrew term yom, Day-Age advocates argue that the six days of Genesis One are not 24-hour periods of time but rather six indefinite epochs or spans of time. This appears to have been the position of such Reformed theologians as Charles Hodge,6 William G. T. Shedd,7 and E. J. Young.8 It has recently been defended by R. Laird Harris9 and the Christian astronomers Hugh Ross10 and David Snoke.11 A variation of this view interprets the six days as literal 24-hour periods that either precede or conclude long ages.12
4. The Catastrophe view (or Gap Theory)
Unsatisfied with the Day-Age interpretation of the Genesis account, other conservatives offered a different method to harmonize the long ages demanded by modern science with the teaching of Genesis one. They proposed an indefinite gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2ff. Genesis 1:1, they argue, refers to an original creation. This original creation was at some later time destroyed by a catastrophic divine judgment, which is alluded to by the phrase, “without form and void.” This view is further encouraged by the wording of the KJV in verse 28, which says that God commanded Adam and Eve to “replenish the earth,” implying a previous creation. Thus, this view would allow for a literal interpretation of the six days (vv. 3-31) and also allow for a great age for the origin of the earth. This view was suggested by Thomas Chalmers13 and popularized by The Scofield Reference Bible.14
5. The Revelatory-Day view
According to the Revelatory view, the six creative “days” are to be interpreted as literal 24-hour days. However, these six days do not refer to the time it took God to create the world. Rather, they refer to the time it took for God to reveal the world’s creation to Moses. Percy J. Wiseman has articulated this view in his book, Creation Revealed in Six Days:
[The Genesis account] is a record of the six days occupied by God in revealing to man the story of creation…. It is narrative of what ‘God said’ to man, there is no suggestion that the acts or processes of God had occupied those six days. During the daylight hours of those six days God told man how in the ages past He had ‘commanded and it stood fast’ and in such a simple way that man could understand how He had created the world and introduced life upon it.15
6. The Literary Framework view
Towards the latter half of the 20th century another approach to interpreting the Genesis creation account has gained a widening acceptance among evangelicals. The Literary Framework view regards the six days of Genesis merely as a literary device used to convey theological truth rather than scientific data. Advocates of this view argue that we should not view the creation week of Genesis as chronological or historical, but rather as topical and thematic. Howard Van Till, professor of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College, is a representative of this view. According to him,
The seven-day chronology that we find in Genesis 1 has no connection with the actual chronology of the Creator’s continuous dynamic action in the cosmos. The creation-week motif is a literary device, a framework in which a number of very important messages are held. The chronology of the narrative is not the chronology of creation but rather the packaging in which the message is wrapped. The particular acts depicted in the Story of the Creator are not the events of creative action reported with photographic realism but rather imaginative illustration of the way in which God and the Creation are related.16
Reformed scholars such as Meredith Kline,17 Bruce Waltke,18 Henri Blocher,19 and Lee Irons20 have also defended this view. In fact, this view seems to be an increasingly popular view among evangelical scholars today.
7. The Anthropomorphic Day view
C. John Collins agrees with those who hold the Literary Framework view that the days of Genesis 1 should be taken figuratively. Since the six days are describing divine activity rather than human activity the days are anthropomorphic in character. That is, they describe God’s creative timeframe using human language that is should not be interpreted literally, anymore than we should ascribe to God a “hand” or “eyes” simply because Scripture sometimes describes divine activity using human body parts (Exod. 7:5; 9:3; Deut. 2:15; 11:12; Prov. 15:3). Nevertheless, Collins disagrees with the Literary Framework view in that he does see chronological sequence. In some ways, this view is a combination of the Day-Age view and the Literary Framework view.21
8. The Limited Geography view
More recently John Sailhamer, an evangelical Old Testament scholar, has advocated a new approach to Genesis one. Like the Gap theorists, Sailhamer separates Genesis 1:1 from the rest of the chapter and views the two sections as descriptive of two different events or two different stages of the same event. Genesis 1:1 is referring to the original creation of the entire universe—”the heavens and the earth.” But from Genesis 1:2 and onward, the focus is upon the Land of Eden and the creation of mankind. In other words, the reference to the creation of light and the land and the sea and the trees and the birds and the fish and the animals is not so much a reference to the original creation. Rather, it is a reference to God preparing the Land of Eden as man’s special dwelling place. Instead of viewing chapter one as depicting God’s creation of the whole earth and chapter two as narrowing the focus to Eden, Sailhamer limits the universal statement to Genesis 1:1, and begins with the Land of Eden in Genesis 1:2.22 This allows Sailhamer to take the six days of Genesis 1:3-31 literally without applying them to the age of the universe or the earth. Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has recently espoused this view in an expositional series on Genesis,23 and Pastor John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church says he “leans” toward this view24
How should we assess these modern interpretations of the Genesis 1? May we still hold the traditional view of creation, which sees “six days” of Genesis 1 as a reference to six literal 24-hour days? Or should we feel constrained to abandon the traditional view and opt for one of the new interpretations? Should we allow the claims of modern science to influence our interpretation of Scripture? Most of us would instinctively answer that last question in the negative. We’re aware of the unbelieving, anti-Christian bias present in much modern science. Consequently, we may feel inclined simply to ignore the challenge of modern science and maintain the traditional view of the Genesis creation account. However, before we jump to a conclusion, let me point out that it is not always wrong for us to allow science to influence and even correct our exegesis.
For example, in the 16th century Nicholas Copernicus rejected the common assumption that the earth was at the center of the solar system. He argued instead that the earth revolves around the sun. If you were a Christian in Copernicus’ day, how would you have responded to his claim? Here is how Martin Luther reportedly responded:
So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.25
Luther was right to take his stand ultimately upon the teaching of Scripture. But Luther was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, in particular his interpretation of Joshua 10. When the inspired writer describes the sun as “standing still,” he is not using scientific language. Rather, he is using phenomenological language, that is, the language of simple observation,26 much like you and I do when we speak of the sun “rising” in the east and “setting” in the west. In this case it would have been appropriate for Luther to reexamine his exegesis of Joshua 10 and to readjust his view of the solar system.
Similarly, the church today should be willing to reexamine traditional views of Scripture in the light of scientific claims. As the theologian John Frame has properly remarked,
We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong. It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, though it is not possible for Scripture itself to be wrong. We must be humble enough and self-critical enough to reexamine these questions, even under the stimulus of scientific claims with which we may be initially unsympathetic. This is part of our apologetic mandate to bring every thought captive to Christ. In that sense, it is right for our exegesis to be ‘influenced’ by science.27
On the other hand, there are some claims of modern science that are clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture. In reality, these so-called scientific claims are sinful distortions of the truth (Rom 1:18). For example, I think the naturalistic philosophy behind the modern theory of evolution is totally incompatible with the teaching of Scripture. Moreover, I am not convinced that the scientific arguments for an old age for the earth have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And although the day age and literary framework views might be plausible ways to interpret Genesis 1,28 I think the exegetical evidence still favors the traditional view as the more plausible reading. In Part 2, I’ll offer some arguments for reading of the six-days of the Genesis creation week as periods corresponding to a 24-hour solar day.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
- In my opinion, this view loses sight of the dual authorship of Scripture. When Moses and the other Scripture writers speak of stars, they do not differentiate between true stars, i.e., suns, planets, galaxies, supernovae, etc., because of their limited empirical and scientific perspective. The fact that God employs language that may be limited by the human author’s conceptual framework or worldview need not imply that God is affirming or endorsing that worldview. Modern meteorologists continue to speak of the sun “rising” and “setting,” expressions whose origin can probably be traced to pre-scientific views of the world. But no one would accuse a weatherman of endorsing or affirming an out-dated worldview because he uses that language. [↩]
- “The Real Problem of Inspiration,” in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1948), 166-67. [↩]
- “The Firmament and the Water Above,” WTJ 53 (1992): 31-46; “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10,” WTJ 59 (1997): 231-55. For a refutation of Seely’s views, see “Appendix C” in James B. Jordan, Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 1999), 227-33. [↩]
- James Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 3-11, 37-103, 501-03. [↩]
- See especially Friedrick Delitzsch’s provocative Babel and Bible (New York: G. P. Putnum’s Sons, 1903). For a critical overview and assessment of this approach, see John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989). Although Walton rejects the idea that human author of Genesis simply plagiarized, he does argue that the author accepted and employed many of the conceptual categories about the world embodied in these myths. So while God (the ultimate author of Scripture) doesn’t affirm these erroneous categories, the human writer (the proximate author) may have believed such concepts to be true. For a fuller and more recent exposition of his view, see Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2009, where he argues that both ANE cosmology literature and Genesis 1 describe the creation in terms of a cosmic temple. As an evangelical, Walton argues that the Genesis account gives us a theologically correct view whereas the ANE cosmological myths provide us with a mixture of truth and error. Walton also believes that the cosmic temple aim of the Genesis 1 account doesn’t answer the question of how long it took God to bring the cosmos into existence since the ontology it presents is functional not metaphysical in nature. [↩]
- Systematic Theology (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 1:568-74. [↩]
- Dogmatic Theology (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1888), 1:475-77. [↩]
- Studies in Genesis One (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964). [↩]
- “The Length of the Creative Days in Genesis 1,” Did God Create in Six Days? ed. Joseph A. Pipa Jr. (Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999), 101-11. [↩]
- Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), 45-72. [↩]
- A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006). [↩]
- This variant has been called the “intermittent day view.” For proponents, see J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 132-37; Robert C. Newman, “Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism,” in Three Views on Creation and Evolution, ed. J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 107-08. [↩]
- Works, I, 228; XII, 369. Cited in Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), p. 135. [↩]
- See p. 4, n. 3. [↩]
- Creation Revealed in Six Days, 3rd ed. (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1958), 40; Bernard Ramm also appears to support this view when he writes, “We believe … that creation was revealed in six days, not performed in six days…. The days are means of communicating to man the great fact that God is Creator, and that He is Creator of all.” The Christian View of Science and Scripture, 151. [↩]
- The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us About Creation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 84-85. [↩]
- “Because It Had Not Rained,” WTJ 20 (1958): 146-157; “Space and Time in Genesis Cosmogony,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48 (March 1996): 2-15. [↩]
- “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One,” Crux 27:4 (1991): 2-10; Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 73-78. [↩]
- In the Beginning: The Opening Chapter of Genesis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 39-59. [↩]
- “The Framework View,” in The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. David G. Hagopian (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), 217-56, 279-303. [↩]
- “How Old Is the Earth? Anthropomorphic Days in Genesis 1:1-2:3,” Presbyterian 20 (1994): 109-130; “Reading Genesis 1:1-2:3 as an Act of Communication: Discourse Analysis and Literal Interpretation,” Did God Create in Six Days? eds. Joseph A. Pipa Jr. and David W. Hall (Taylors, S.C.: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999). [↩]
- Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1996). Interestingly, Sailhamer identifies the Land of Eden with the Land of Canaan. [↩]
- Driscoll’s sermon can be accessed here. [↩]
- Piper expressed his views in a recent interview where he was asked the question, “Do you accept “old earth” and evolution?” Piper only sees two reads as viable: the traditional view and the view advocated by Sailhamer that allows for an old earth. Though he favors the latter of these two, he makes it clear that he believes Adam and Eve were real historical individuals created by a special act of God and not the results of an evolutionary process. The transcript of Piper’s answer to the interview can be accessed here. [↩]
- Table Talk, trans. Theodore G. Tappert, vol. 54 of Luther’s Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehman (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 358-59. The reader should keep in mind that Table Talk is not a collection of Luther’s writings but a collection of written and edited reports of what Luther said. As the editor notes in the introduction, “It is too much to claim that even the manuscripts provide us with verbatim reports” (xxii). Nevertheless, “it must … be added that the texts are reasonable trustworthy in reporting the subject matter and the directions which the conversation took. In other words, the Table Talk is less reliable than writings which we have from Luther’s own hand but not on this account to be dismissed as fiction” (xxiii). [↩]
- The Hebrew words translated “stop” (v. 12), “stood still” (v. 13) and “stopped” (v. 13) may refer to the cessation of brightness rather than the cessation of movement. In this case, Joshua was praying for the sun to stop shining and his prayer was answered beyond his expectations when God sent a hailstorm that routed the enemy (v. 11). Thus, to use Walter Kaiser’s language, we should not speak of “Joshua’s long day” but of “Joshua’s long night.” More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 123-26. [↩]
- The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), 303. [↩]
- Many who defend these views are orthodox scholars who are committed to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. For this reason, I hesitate to be too dogmatic or make the six literal days view a test of orthodoxy. John Frame, a proponent of the traditional view, agrees and writes, “I myself see no reason to suppose that the creation week was longer than a normal week. But I see no reason either to require that view as a test of orthodoxy.” The Doctrine of God, 302-06. [↩]
24 Responses to “The Six-Days of Creation: Some Modern Interpretations of the Creation Week in Genesis One”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Bravo! Great article.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
Good that you’re willing to listen to the scientists.
However, there is an obvious exegetical problem with a literalistic reading of Genesis 1 — that is, how is a “day” defined in the three “days” prior to the creation of the sun? A “day”, as you’re assuming it, is the time it takes for the earth to complete one revolution on its axis. But your assuming that the earth, prior to the creation of the sun, revolved at the same rate of speed, which is something that couldn’t be assumed since the sun’s gravitional pull is a key component in the length of an earth day.
You’ve also seemed to have convoluted geological evidence with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has to do with what is supposed to have happened to species over time. Geological evidence, such as erosion of canyons, carbon 14, tectonic plates, etc., is much more observable.
Christian Apologist and scientist Hugh Ross has asserted that there is more evidence for an old earth than there is for a round earth. (See his inter-action with a now dis-credited young-earther on the John Ankerberg show.)
Further, I’m told that Augustine posited an old earth. Is that true and can you quote him?
Finally, you need to deal with Genesis 1 as literature. What is its genre? You would want to avoid reading a symbolic representation as a scientific treatise.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
This is not a defense of 24 hour days in creation. However, before we allow modern science to have too much influence in our Bible interpretation, we need to remember that modern science’s view of origins is rooted in the proper premise that if there is no Creator, there is no Judge. Consider the lack of reason which drives this:
We are told that as the result of the admittedly unobserved Big Bang, something happened which was absolutely contrary to what has been observed ever since man has taken note of physical occurrences. In every situation known to man, explosions have resulted in chaos, disorder and destruction. In fact, with regard to observed explosions, chaos and destruction have always increased in direct proportion to the size of the explosion.
But contrary to all that has been witnessed and rationally analyzed, the Big Bang, an explosion far greater in force than anything known to man, supposedly resulted in intricate patterns of order and interdependency. Even more remarkable, we are told that out of impersonal matter came personhood, consciousness, intellect and discernment.
Science, out of necessity, has gone through many changes while God’s Word has remained the same.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Thanks for the excellent summary; look forward to the additional information.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
-
@Scott: Thanks for the encouragement, brother.
@John: Brother, I appreciate your forthright challenge that I interpret the Bible in keeping with its genre and maintain a willingness to listen to the insights of science. I’d like to make a few qualifying remarks that I hope will clarify my position:
(1) You see “an obvious exegetical problem with a literalistic reading of Genesis 1″ since, according to a prima facie reading of the text, the earth did not stand in relation to the sun for the first “three days.” How then can one argue that Genesis 1 is referring to six “solar days.” Actually, I don’t plan to argue that the six days of Genesis 1 were all six solar days as we know them. If you’ll note my closing remark, I plan to argue that they stand for six periods of time that correspond or are analogous to (not univocal to) what we know as a solar day. That’s how I think an ancient reader would have interpreted the text.
(2) I don’t convolute or even conflate “geological evidence with evolutionary theory.” I’ve read Christian scientists like Hugh Ross and David Snoke and am well-aware that one may argue for an old earth on the basis of his interpretation of the geological evidence while simultaneously rejecting macro-evolution. There are, however, some Christian scientists, like Howard Van Till, who argue that the geological evidence supports both an old earth and also a form of macro-evolution. I find the former conclusion plausible though I’m not yet convinced. I find the latter position implausible with the data of Scripture. Hence, if I were to abandon the more traditional reading of the Genesis creation week, I’d be more willing to embrace a reading like that offered by Hugh Ross or Meredith Kline (a more exegetically driven Framework Hypothesis) than a reading offered by a theistic evolutionist like Van Till. So I hope this explanation clarifies my position.
(3) I can’t recall at the moment Augustin’s view of the antiquity of the earth and I’m not presently in my study so I can’t say. Perhaps someone could help us. I do think, however, that Augustin posited the view that creation was instantaneous and that the six days were something like a metaphor or mere literary device. In that sense, Augustin’s view is somewhat non-traditional. But an instantaneous creation is not necessarily the same as an old creation. Again, I have to plead uncertainty at this point.
(4) I do hope to address the genre of Genesis 1 in my next installment. I don’t believe it’s poetry (maybe with the exception of 1:27). I think, rather, it bears the marks of highly stylized historical narrative. But I’ll say more later.
John, thanks again for your ‘iron-sharpening-iron” remarks!
@George: Thanks, brother, for the cautionary reminder. We should never allow human empirical observation, description, induction and deduction of the data of the universe to contravene the ultimate authority of Scripture. So there are and have been many scientific theories that Christians rightly reject. Nevertheless, God has given us general revelation as a backdrop against which we may understand and interpret special revelation. There’s a sense in which we cannot properly understand special revelation in complete isolation from general revelation. To be more precise, the relationship is reciprocal. It’s also true that we cannot properly understand general revelation without special revelation. To use Calvin’s illustration, we can’t truly know God unless we truly know ourselves (and we are a facet of general revelation), and we cannot truly know ourselves unless we know God. Since God has endowed even unregenerate men with knowledge and skill, non-Christian scientists can make observations and draw certain conclusions about the world God made that are formally correct. This is what enabled Thomas Edison, an agnostic, to create so many helpful inventions. Similarly, non-Christian scientists usually aren’t wrong about everything they say regarding the universe and the world. They are certainly wrong at the worldview level. But some of their “lower-level” observations and conclusions turn out to be correct and helpful. Accordingly, the Christian Bible interpreter shouldn’t ignore or reject everything modern scientists say about the universe. They should seek to be discerning and cautious to be sure. And in the end, God’s revelation in Scripture must always have the final say.
@David: Thanks for your encouragement, brother.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
If our cocern is to be true to the Scriptures and also scientific findings, I would recommend that you do a search on Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory. One day this work is going to be better known, and as a result, many Christians are going to be scrambling to get their academic houses in order.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Thanks for the summary, Dr. Bob. I want to give my take on the last point you made about listening to science. I do think we learn from history “the philosophy of the second look.” That is, science should be allowed to make us take a second look–not at the truth of Scripture–, but at our interpretation of Scripture. The key point is that what must be decisive in this re-evaluation of our interpretation is not the teachings of modern science, but the teaching of Scripture. Modern science does not have the privilege of dictating how we understand the literary genre of Genesis 1. Scripture itself must be decisive for this. Scripture must interpret Scripture and especially the literary genre of Scripture.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
-
@George: Thanks for recommending Walter Brown’s work. His a well-credentialed Christian scientist. I’ve read his theory and it sounds very intriguing and plausible. Of course, we must remember that even attempts by Christians to describe the physical mechanics of the biblical phenomenon of the flood should be viewed as theories and held tentatively inasmuch as there may also be other possible models to explain the empirical data in a way consistent with the biblical teaching.
@Sam: Dr. Waldron, thanks a bunch for your clarifying remarks. It’s never a question of whether human science should be allowed to correct Scripture. That kind of autonomous nonsense has been suggested by the Serpent and must be rejected by all Bible-believing Christians. What human science may do, however, is prompted us to take a second look at our interpretation of Scripture, which may or may not need revision. Moreover, though I believe comparative studies of extra-biblical literature can sometimes shed some light on Hebrew genres in the OT and help us better interpret certain passages, we must give pride of place to the analogy of Scripture. It matters more how Christ, Moses, or Paul interpret, say, the creation week than how the Sumerians, Egyptians, or Babylonians framed their cosmogonies.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I enjoyed this article and I await the next one with anticipation. I hold to the traditional view of the Genesis account and I believe I am constrained to do so by the truth of God’s word. I do not doubt that the days were literal days or that creation was formerly without rebellion, death, disease, or bloodshed—everything was very good (theistic evolution postulates millions of years of death before God stepped into the process), that sin entered the world through one man (whom God created out of the dust) and that God judged mankind with a world-wide flood. I do agree however that scientific observation must not always be despised; rather it must be constrained by the truth of scripture – the response to 16th century Nicholas Copernicus is a perfect example.
It saddens me that an increasing number of Christians are accepting the ‘overwhelming evidence’ that the earth is old because a significant number of people cleverer than they are says it is; God’s word tells us that a clever man can be a ‘fool’ (Psalm 53 v 1) when he interprets the ‘evidence’ within a pre-suppositional framework that is not centered on God’s revealed truth.
Part of the problem is that logic is not taught in the education systems and many logical fallacies are committed by the teachers of evolution, which bypass the limited reasoning of gullible students (Dr. Jason Lisle addresses this problem in series of articles on the answers in genesis website)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/07/27/logical-fallacies-introduction
Another problem is that ‘Uniformitarianism’, the idea that the present is the key to the past, is assumed as fact. This teaches students that present-day geological processes have always operated at today’s snail’s pace and that they alone are necessary to explain how rock layers and fossils formed and how old the earth is, without a consideration of the Bible’s revelation of cataclysmic events and the possibility of varying rates of processes.
These pre-suppositions must be held to tenaciously, as evolution requires such timescales to have any possibility of being a viable option.
To be honest, sad to say, I am more encouraged by the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement than the direction of many Christians; at least this group is opposing evolutionary teaching because science observation shouts out the truth of the ‘irreducible complexity’ of even the most miniscule of biological organisms.
By the way, I am a science teacher and I have been asked by my Head of Department (an unbeliever) to add a creationist view of the age of the earth to one of our science schemes. Pray that I will be wise in addressing the assumed presuppositions of evolutionary teaching at a level that 13-14 year olds can understand!
November 4th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Near the end of the Bible, the Holy Spirit prompts the revelation that Jesus is the word. Even closer to the end the Holy Spirit reveals that Jesus spoke only in parables. From other passages, the Holy Spirit reveals that Jesus was with the Creator at the beginning and before the earth was created. The Holy Spirit even tells us that Jesus paid the price for all who He would seek and save “before the foundation” of the universe.
How are we to understand the parables? Jesus taught how. By comparing spiritual things with spiritual (scripture with scripture)…the Bible interpreting itself, as its own dictionary, etc., we can begin to perceive the truth.
I think that the difficulty that interpreters across the ages (from Adam and Eve to our day) have with God’s word is that everyone has his own agenda and it’s usually not the LORD’s.
Let me give a brief classic example: 2Chron7:14. This passage has been used in countless sermons, Bible studies, etc. But I can’t get past the first few words before I have to call upon the LORD to help me. Adam and Eve didn’t do that when confronted with a new, contrary gospel.
Our own agenda isn’t the LORD’s and the LORD gives us the prescription: Humble ourselves. Is He saying that we are to humble ourselves? Says it pretty clearly in the word. But is that what He means? In the rest of the passage, He tells us of other works that we are to do (pray, seek His face, turn from our wicked ways) before He hears us, forgives, and heals.
Is this how we arrive at the conclusion that before Christ, saved Israelites had a way to be saved that was different (and remains different) from the way Christ-followers are saved? Sure seems like it.
Which brings me back to the parable nature of the Word/Bible. This precious Word of God is a huge, complex parable (Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.) Weren’t the Bereans honourable (noble, i.e., kingly), searching the Scriptures daily? They weren’t looking outside the Bible, they weren’t conjuring up interpretations, manufacturing approaches.
Bottom line: Let’s stick with the Bible, let it interpret itself, and we must look for God’s agenda.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:49 am
[...] http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/11/the-six-days-of-creation-some-modern-interpretations-of-the-creat... [...]
November 4th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
As one who holds to the apostle’s view of the preeminence of Jesus Christ, I am concerned that the church today is giving “modern science” preeminence in defining its view of Genesis.
Why does “modern science” demand long ages?
Are long ages not required to support the view that the fossil record is the evidence of the macro-evolution of life from common descent? But Genesis 1 stands as clear testimony against the doctrine of common descent. The phase ‘after its kind’ is used 10 times in that chapter to describe the reproduction of plant and animal life. The discovery of the RNA/DNA genetic system reveals the genius behind the creation of self-replicating life forms. And again, Genesis 6 stands as clear testimony of the catastrophic event that produced the fossil record and confirmed by apostolic testimony…
‘by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water’ [2 Peter 3:5-6]
So why again should the church accommodate the long ages demanded by “modern science”? Rather, in this case, it is the church that should be instructing a science community that has lost its way.
The Copernican heliocentric model of the solar system is an example of why the church should listen to the scientist. But there is another way to view this incident in church history that may be more appropriate for our time.
The geocentric view was adopted by the church based on the word of pagan philosophers. Good science made a correction to the unbiblical influences on the church. Today the church is again listening to vain philosophy, but this time disguised as “modern science”. If the church is not careful, she will fall into the same error, only this time the truths at risk are at the heart of the gospel.
What is Christ’s view of Genesis?
‘From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female’ [Mark 10; Matthew 19]. ‘And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also at the coming of the Son of Man [Luke 17; Matthew 24]. Christ quotes from Genesis and holds to the establishment of the marriage covenant from the ‘beginning of creation’. And He holds to the account of the Genesis Flood, relating His own coming again to Noah’s day.
The church must guard the foundational truth that death is the result of Adam’s sin. For just as Adam represented all men as their head when he fell into sin, so also is Christ, as the second Adam, the head of all men that are in Him. The implications from Biblical Theology are clear. There can be no long ages of death and suffering before Adam, because these things are the result of the fall of man into sin.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
[...] that permitted by the more traditional six-day framework. We surveyed these modern alternatives in Part 1 of this [...]
November 5th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I greatly appreciate the wise and thoughtful insights of many on this blog. In regards to determining the truth in the creation/evolution debate, I think that in his remarks re: the Big Bang George Seevers has put his finger on the heart of the problem. He states that, “In every situation known to man, explosions have resulted in chaos, disorder and destruction. In fact, with regard to observed explosions, chaos and destruction have always increased in direct proportion to the size of the explosion.”
His point, of course, is that the evolutionary notion that a massive explosion was the catalyst for the spectacular complexity and beauty of the natural world is completely illogical. I will go a step further: it is utterly absurd … mind-numbingly and spectacularly absurd. This absurdity is heightened by the fact that the matter in this explosion – ALL OF THE MATTER IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE – supposedly came from absolutely NOTHING. Thus, at its very foundation, the theory of evolution is completely ridiculous (for those who may argue that the TOE only covers the development of life, I am well aware of this point and am also well aware that it is a cop-out … do evolutionists really believe that everything in the universe prior to life was created by a supernatural Creator? Of course not!)
But the TOE is crippled by equally absurd notions at many other of its critical junctures, like the formation of stars, the origin of life, the transition of life forms (since mutations can NEVEER provide new information, how can a feather, a wonderfully complex design that bears no relationship to a reptile’s scale, evolve from a reptile’s scale?), etc. etc. etc.
When all is said and done, I am absolutely convinced that the real reason that any Christian does not stand behind a literal interpretation of Scripture is because they believe that science has proven that such an interpretation cannot be correct. But when one steps back and looks at the broad outline of the TOE, it becomes clear that it is utterly devoid of truth.
Finally, I want to make it clear that I am well aware that science has contributed greatly to human progress. My quarrel is not with science, not at all; it is with the Theory of Evolution.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Steve, like you I do not believe that the Scriptures tip their hat toward the Big Bang theory. However, perhaps the most important reason why I reject it is precisely because it does not presume a creation out of nothing. This has been a misconception among a number of those who reject the theory, whereas the Big Bang model, as far as I was aware, actually presupposes the existence of a “singularity” that is eginningless. This is certainly the view championed by Hawking. It is rather the “steady state theory” that posits a universe springing out of nothing.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I’m sorry, make that “beginningless.”
November 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Benjamin
With all due respect, I believe that when all of the double talk is stripped away, most of the proponents of the Big Bang theory do indeed believe that the matter of the Big Bang originated out of nothing. Incidentally, your statement that the Big Bang (“it”) “does not presume a creation out of nothing” contains a critical flaw: for the most part, Big Bang proponents do not presume a “creation” at all – because a creation requires a Creator, which most of them reject. A Creator is completely anathema to proponents of Naturalism (the world view of most evolutionists) because a Creator is SUPERNATURAL, something that Naturalism strictly forbids.
You said that “the Big Bang model, as far as I was aware, actually presupposes the existence of a “singularity” that is beginningless.” It is my understanding that a central tenet of the singularity concept is, in fact, the origination of matter out of nothing. It is the Steady State theory that proposes that matter is eternal.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:53 am
The author plainly does not support macro-evolution and I think he made that clear. The point of the article is not to sympathize with that system and I think the article issues a relevant challenge for Christians to face things they might reject out-of-hand because they are uncomfortable for us. My problem with the challenge is thus:
One problem I have with studying science to educate my theology is that for the person of ordinary intelligence, like me, it’s not long until it gets into things I do not understand at all and therefore can neither vouch for nor deny. It is/was so with one I know who, for 20 years professed Christianity then turned athiest. When he embarked upon his study, he had to admit that most of the things that changed his mind were things he honestly couldn’t really understand; yet he chose to believe the conclusions that were made. I am sure I couldn’t debate the topic with any of you; my science knowledge and interest are way too scant. With that in mind, I really don’t understand some things and maybe some of you can explain to me.
If long ages, what is supposed by these people to have been happening on the earth for all those thousands of years? It leads me to suppose that supporters of such ideas are paving the way to macro-evolution. What was happening all that time if not macro-evolution? I don’t really get their reason or need for proving the earth is old if not to establish a time-period during which macro-evolution could take place.
Layman makes a new point to me and I think it is excellent; that there could be no long years of death and suffering before Adam b/c before him there was no death. I guess it would lend comfort to at least one person I know who said he could never believe there is a God because if Cain had a wife, she was his sister and God condemns incest, so if He existed He would be a hypocrite. With these long ages theories, there could have been thousands of women from which Cain could choose. But seriously; even if the earth remained unpopulated for thousands of years (which makes no sense to me), which it must have done by some of these theories, did God reappear after eons and finally create living things and mankind? What existed for all those years, a barren rock with water on it? Did the hydrologic cycle take place? For what purpose? I guess I don’t get it. But I hope that I will never forget what THE TWO greatest minds in the world of macro-evolutionary thought had to say to Ben Stein about how life got started. One said “we think it might’ve happened on the heads of crystals”, and the great man Richard Dawkins himself suggested that super-intelligent aliens seeded the earth with life.
This may be a sophomoric point, but let us suppose that something like the Day-Age theory is correct. I’ve heard people suggest that macro-evolution could occur during these ages (and thereby they graciously give God some kind of role in the whole project) but I am not sure that is a necessity in the model. But if macro-evolution were occurring are we to suppose that the amoebae that would become human were somehow given dominion over all the other amoebae that would become other species??
I appreciated Seevers’ comments, and Layman made another excellent point in what he said about Copernicus. I have to say I disagree with the interpretation the author gave this historical event and entirely agree with Layman. Too often in this world Christianity has been equated with what became Roman Catholicism in the eastern hemisphere. So much confusion exists even today in the minds of the biblically ignorant who think that R. Catholicism and Christianity are the same thing. So much mischief came out of that ancient culture of an ignorant populace plagued by superstition and religious corruption. Even Copernicus himself was persuaded to recant.
Finally (and forgive me if this is too long), in fact, there are numerous things that have occurred in my lifetime that show that geological changes can, do and have come about in very short periods of time, so I guess I don’t see the need to pander to people who think that people of faith choose to wallow in ignorance in order to continue in their beliefs. I don’t care how intellectually one debates the issues or cloaks themselves in the aura of science, if you reject their theories, they’ll still think you stupid. But how stupid is it to say with a serious face that the earth was seeded with life by super-intelligent aliens? I guess I agree, though. It was, but just ONE, SUPER INTELLIGENT ALIEN whose name is YAHWEH.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
@Pemberbley: Thanks for the sharpening input. I’d like to make a few clarifying remarks related to your comments, which I hope will prove helpful.
(1) You express some reserve in studying science in order to educate one’s theology.
I think I share you concern in part. I certainly don’t think we need to be experts in science in order to understand the basic truths of the Bible. Moreover, scientists can sometimes overwhelm laypeople with extravagant claims that they (i.e., the laypeople) are not always equipped to assess intelligently or refute. So that puts us in some ways at a disadvantage. And that’s why, in Part 2 of this study, I urge believers not to be swayed too quickly by assertions made by science. Scientific paradigms have been and are continuing to change. Furthermore, I think scientists (as John Frame points out) need to study theology in order to understand properly the world around them.
The one minor caveat or small qualification I’d made with respect to your comments is that we cannot truly understand divine revelation without some knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. God intends general revelation to be the backdrop against which we read special revelation. So in order to appreciate what the Bible means when it says the “heavens declare the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1), we’ve got to know something about the heavens. Moreover, as Calvin argued in his Institutes, we cannot truly know God without knowing ourselves and we cannot truly know ourselves without knowing God. There’s a kind of reciprocal relationship. This is not to place human science on an equal footing with human interpretations of Scripture. The revelation of Scripture is, I believe, more perspicuous than the revelation of nature. Accordingly, though general and special revelation are equally authoritative since they’re equally the voice of the one true God, Scripture plays a normative role over our interpretations of the world around us. All of this is not to discount your wise cautionary words. Just wanted to attempt to expand on the relationship of our study of Scripture and our study of the world around us (which is sometimes called “science”).
(2) You say above, “I have to say I disagree with the interpretation the author gave this historical event and entirely agree with Layman.”
Apparently, you didn’t read Part 2 of this series. There I point out that the geocentric view was initially given its “scientific” credentials not from the church but from early pagan science. I pointed out that “Claudius Ptolemaeus, a 2nd century mathematician and astronomer first systematically expounded that view. But the Christian church made the fatal mistake of equating the Ptolemaic view with Scripture. We must avoid that mistake.” Hope this clarifies.
(3) You and others have a hard time understanding why some Christian scientists would argue for an “old earth” yet reject evolution. After all, long periods of time without an evolutionary process would seem pointless.
As I indicate at the end of this article and argue in Part 2, I see no reason at this point to interpret the framework of the creation week in terms of long ages. I’ve read Christian scientists, like Hugh Ross and David Snoke, who marshal evidence for an old earth and remain unconvinced that their conclusions are conclusive. Yet, in an attempt to be fair to them, they really do, as far as I can tell, reject macro-evolution though holding to a universe and earth that is quite old.
What purpose would God have in creating the earth slowly? What purpose could there by in long ages passing without humans to inhabit an earth God had desired them to subdue? If I were in their shoes, I might answer something like this: (1) with the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. In other words, what might seem like a long and monotonous epoch to us is to God but a moment. (2) God has created places in the earth and ocean and universe that no human eye has seen but his. Why would God do this? Why would he create sea creatures in the ocean who live in such deep waters that we cannot see them? Why are there presently galaxies beyond the reach even of the Hubble telescope? What good are they? Ultimately, I can’t give a definitive answer to such questions. But God is bigger than we are. He has a reason for everything he makes and does even if he doesn’t tell us. And if God wanted to make the earth and fill it with inhabitants over the space of one millisecond, on the one hand, or one million years, on the other, who are we to question him? Personally, I think the plainest reading of the Bible is that God created in the space of what would correspond to a six-day period as we know it (Exod. 20:11). I’m not convinced that scientific claims for an old earth are conclusive enough to constrain me to readjust my exegesis. At the same time, I’m willing to concede that good men who are committed to the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture think otherwise. I differ with them on this issue but still treat them as brothers and do not believe that their position of necessity requires them to affirm macro-evolution–a view I find much harder to reconcile with Scripture.
Hope this is helpful.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
November 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Mr. Gonzales,
Thanks for your answers and no, I hadn’t read part 2 because I didn’t know it had been “published” yet. I failed to notice that the words, “the next installment” were a link.
I did not at all mean to sound as though I reject science altogether. In my limited understanding, there is plenty of sound science that refutes macro-evolution (which is of course, less important than what the Word of God says on the matter) and that attempts to explain the appearance of the age of the earth and the universe. The first being the idea that it was all initially created with the appearance of age. Do we not understand that the light from the first stars was immediately visible on the earth; and more obvious, that Adam and Eve were given life as adults? I realize that with some of the models, the first point about the stars may be debatable, but is the second one? Not to mention that I suppose all the trees didn’t have to initially grow from seeds. My main point about the endeavor is that with someone who fancies a very deep study of the topic, like most of you here, it is not long before I would indeed be out of my league and would, at some point, have to start taking someone else’s word on it.
Still, upon the contemplation of these things, it is so often that these men of science, as you have acknowledged, come to conclusions I can not embrace. It is interesting that you mention the creatures in the great deep, for some time ago I watched the entire series “The Blue Planet”. In one of the series they explore the deepest area that man has been able to reach. The narrator went on and on about the fact that this was the first time these things had ever been seen; but my thought was that God has always known about it. I remember watching it and thinking, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”, but the narrator’s next words, uttering his conclusions to all he was seeing, belied a blind man. Observing the general revelation ought to, and has for me, led me to worship. I don’t necessarily feel the need to plumb the very depths of knowledge nor answer all the skeptics since what I see and learn can be interpreted within the framework of Scripture. Nor do I advocate ignorance at all. When it gets into areas I cannot understand with the intelligence and wisdom God gave me, I am forced to rely upon the Word of God first and foremost. After all, some things have to be taken on faith. Some reading this might consider that willful ignorance.
But I do not say that your article was misguided and hope it didn’t sound that way. I think I said at the beginning that your challenge is relevant and we shouldn’t want to just ignore things that are inconvenient. I just wanted to express why I would proceed with great caution and hopefully, to get answers to questions I had purely as a result of reading your article.
Thank you
November 9th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Thanks, Pemberley. I think we’re on the same page.
Bob G.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
[...] activity in Genesis 1 as occurring in a space of time corresponding to six 24-hour solar days. The Six Days of Creation: Some Modern Interpretations of the Creation Week in Genesis 1 The Six Days of Creation: A Defense of the More Traditional Reading Your servant, [...]
November 15th, 2009 at 7:00 am
(I believe that view #7 (C John Collins) is also confusingly known as the Analogical view.)
December 16th, 2009 at 12:21 am
[...] that permitted by the more traditional six-day framework. We surveyed these modern alternatives in Part 1 of this [...]