| SITEMAP for ORIGINS | — | Views of Creation | Origins
Evidence |
Origins Education |
This page is part of AGE
OF
THE EARTH — THEOLOGY ,
and it contains these sections: Overview Is
it scientific? The
6 Days Chronology & Concepts
In this page "creationist" is defined the way it should be, to include all Judeo-Christian theists who believe that God designed and created the universe, whether they think the process of creation was young-earth (by miracles), old-earth progressive (by miracles and natural process), or old-earth evolutionary (by natural process), where "natural" does not mean "without God" because God designed and created nature, and can guide it.
What is the meaning of Genesis 1? Does it describe a 144-hour creation? Or when we examine the text, are other interpretations possible or even preferable? When we carefully study the text of Genesis 1, in the context of the whole Bible, should we conclude that the universe is young, or old, or that neither view is clearly taught?
Here is a brief summary of common interpretations:
Does Genesis 1 describe history in chronological
sequence? In a day-age view, each yom (a
Hebrew word with several meanings, although it usually is translated as "day" in
Genesis 1) is a long time period of unspecified length. In a young-earth
interpretation, each yom is a 24-hour
day, and the entire creation process occurred in six consecutive
24-hour days. Or
creation might have occurred in nonconsecutive 24-hour
days with long periods between each day. Or maybe God described,
in days
of proclamation, what would occur during the process
of creation. In a gap view there was an
initial creation (in Genesis 1:1) followed by a catastrophe (in 1:2) and a
re-creation on the earth
(beginning in 1:3).
Or is the intended meaning historical but non-chronological? In
a framework view,
the six days form a logical framework in which history is arranged
topically, not chronologically. The two problems in Genesis 1:2 — the
earth was "formless and empty" — are
solved in Days 1-3 (by separations that produce form) and
Days 4-6 (by filling each form). And if you compare the
separations and fillings in each pair of days (1-and-4,
2-and-5, 3-and-6)
you will
find parallels between these related aspects of creation.
And maybe
the descriptions in Genesis 1 were written for the original
readers,
in
their
cultural context, by using familiar theories about physical
reality from
surrounding cultures (using their ancient near-east
cosmology) for the purpose of more effectively challenging false
theories about spiritual reality (in their
polytheistic "nature
religions").
All interpretations should emphasize the clear statements of essential creation-theology in Genesis 1: Everything in nature was created by God, and is subordinate to God. There are no polytheistic "nature gods" so we should worship only the one true God who created everything. God's creation is good but is not divine, so nature is placed in proper perspective. God declared His creation to be "very good" so we can reject the idea that physical things are intrinsically bad; our problem is sin, not physicality. And humans are special because God created us in His own image.
CONSENSUS ?
Linguistic scholars and theologians, after careful studies of Genesis and
the Bible as a whole, have not reached agreement about the meaning of Genesis
1. For example, in 1982 the International Council on Biblical
Inerrancy decided (by agreement of all members except one, Henry
Morris) to not include a 144-hour creation as an essential component of
a fundamentalist
belief
in inerrancy. Statements
of Affirmation & Denial from ICBI [3 k]
Research Tools (neutral,
not advocating any view)
• Word
Studies in Genesis One is the text of Genesis 1 plus definitions for each
word, by Hugh Ross [8 k] (tip: open this page in two side-by-side windows,
one for the text, one for definitions)
• Scriptures
[throughout the Bible] Related To Creation — a list compiled by Hugh
Ross [3 k]
Overview-Surveys (neutral,
not advocating any view)
•
Four
Views of the Biblical Creation Account by Reasons to Believe [3 k]
• The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days
of Creation by proponents of the views (24-Hour, Day-Age, Framework) — publisher's
description [5 k + 3k] and review [7 k]
• Interpretations of the Creation Account in Genesis One by Theopedia (16 k
+ 2k)
Comprehensive Reports (covering several views)
• Report
of the Creation Study Committee for Presbyterian Church in America (2000) [large:
233 k + 37K]
• Report
of the Committee to Study the Views of Creation for Orthodox Presbyterian
Church (2004) [large: 380 k + 280k]
| I.O.U. — During summer 2008 (May-July) this page will become more complete, with better selectivity (in evaluating web-resources) and fewer rough edges. |
In Genesis 1 do we see the literal what-and-when scientific details of creation, as if someone had videorecorded the process? Or does Genesis 1 describe the results of creation while declaring its theological significance?
• What Genesis is Really About and Comparing Biblical and Scientific Maps of Origins by Conrad Hyers, written in 1983 and 2001 [8 k and 27 k]
• John Walton (paraphrase of BHC-2005) =====
• John Walton -- lecture at Wheaton College symposium (functions & purposes)
audio + powerpoint (52 minutes + 10 for Q-and-A) =====
Waltke-page (needs fixing on 4-22-08), fw-bw.htm
Genesis: A Commentary (Bruce Waltke)
• description
• negative
young-earth review by Andrew Kulikovsky
Science & Theology in The Two Books
of God
Questions about "theology and/or science?" and "religion
versus science?" are examined in THE
TWO BOOKS OF GOD — SCRIPTURE & NATURE and in these pages:
•
A
series about Humphreys' Cosmology & Timothy Test: 1. Perry
Phillips [22 k] (old-earth), 2. Russel
Humphreys [11 k] (young-earth), 3. Jonathan
Sarfati [19 k] (young-earth), 4. Perry
Phillips [22 k] (old-earth), where [page-sizes] don't include
end-notes.
• The
Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science by Walter
Bradley & Roger Olsen, is a multi-purpose paper discussing scripture (mainly
the text of Genesis 1) plus science (chemical and biological evolution, and age-sciences)
written for the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in 1982 [67 k
+ appendix by Norm Geisler + notes]
This question — Does it teach science? — is a continuing theme
in other parts of this page, including 144-Hour Creation & Day-Age
Chronology & Ancient Near-East Cosmology.
Why was Genesis 1 written using a six-day structure? Is it a chronological history of a creation that occurred in six 24-four hour days, or in six longer periods of time? Or is the six-day structure a literary framework that provides a logical outline of creation? Or is there another purpose?
The 6-Day Framework
In a framework view (summarized above) the
six days form a logical framework in which history is arranged topically,
not chronologically, in two sets of days (1-3 with separations, and 4-6
with fillings) that have parallels between between related aspects
of creation in three pairs of days: 1—4, 2—5, and 3—6.
pro-framework:
•
The Framework
Interpretation of Genesis 1 in brief introductions by Rich Milner & Ray
Bohlin (neutral), Craig Rusbult (pro), and Carol Hill (pro) [8 k]
• review
of The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation by Scott
Yoshikawa [11 k]
• Framework
Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary by Lee Irons [17 k]
• Space
and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony by Meredith Kline [55 k + 10k]
PSCF (similar to Irons but in more detail)
• Length
of Days in Genesis by Rowland Ward [54 k]
pro-and-con:
• reviews of Waltke? xx
•
Report
of the Committee to study the Framework Hypothesis for the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church (pro-and-con) [140 k], concludes that "the
framework interpretation, as formulated in this report, accords with the
system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the
Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church." — Initially
a "Consensus Statement on Creation and Hermeneutics" was
available on the web, but it was eliminated, as explained in the final
paragraph of Section 1.
• neutral treatments are also in the Overview-Surveys above (short)
and below (long).
anti-framework:
•
In
the Space of Six Days (general + framework) by Kenneth Gentry [17 k]
•
How
far should evangelicals go? (general + literary) by Todd Beall [27 k
+9k] and response by Craig Rusbult [3 k]
• A
Critique of the Literary Framework View by Andrew Kulikovsky [34 k]
• From
Chaos to Cosmos: A Critique of the Framework Hypothesis by Joseph Pipa [77 k
+ 23k] (old link is broken, to http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm)
• Critique
of Framework Interpretation (Parts 1 & 2) by
Robert McCabe -- is large [94 k + 37k] & [289 k
+ 60k] =====
• Walker (?) ===== [overly
simplistic, with better pages from others?]
• creationontheweb links ===== [to
check for good pages]
What is the length of a "yom" in
Genesis 1 ?
If the days are intended to be chronological, how long were the days?
• In the framework view this question is not
important, because the six days are a logical framework for describing topical history, which
is not necessarily chronological history.
• The
Days of Creation — a statement by Westminster Theological Seminary
explains why "we recognize that the exegetical
question of the length of the days of Genesis 1 may be an issue which cannot
be, and therefore is not intended by God to be, answered in dogmatic terms." [12 k]
• 12 Views of Yom in Genesis 1 (strengths & weaknesses)
by Norman Geisler [5 k outline]
• the
meaning of "yom" by Rich Deem (old earth) [10 k
+ 28k
references]
•Word
Study of "yom" by Greg Neyman (old earth) [16 k]
• "yom" means
a 24-hour day by Ken Ham (young earth) [40 k + 8k]
• The
Days of Creation: Hours or Eons? by Dick Fischer [32 k] PSCF
• Does
the Bible Teach a Young Earth? by Matt Perman, who describes arguments
(by Hugh Ross and others) for long days [25 k], summarizes scientific
evidence for an old earth [11 k], then cites evangelical scholars and
asks "Why
is this important?" [4 k].
•
Biblical
Evidence for Long Creation Days by Rich Deem [14 k + 2k] plus end-of-page
links that include literal
interpretation in Genesis 1 [19 k + 12k]
• IOU — Answers In Genesis (young earth) has a links-section that
will be searched/evaluated to find useful pages.
Young Earth Views
I.O.U. — There will be pages supporting
and criticizing these views. I'll search the web, and will ask young-earth
people for resources they recommend, in an effort to find the best pages. These
will include, but will not be limited to, pages from two major young-universe
organizations: Institute for Creation Research (Henry Morris, John Morris,...)
and Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham,...).
• pro-YEC pages by AIG, ICR,...
• Young-Earth
Creationism: A Literal Mistake by Dick Fischer (39 k + 3k)
Paul Copan (OE) and John MacArthur (YE) in Areopagus -- http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/revised-genesis-science.html
Day-Age Views
two questions: 1. can days be long (not 24 hours)? , 2. concordance between days & science?
concordance?
Hugh Ross ===== with
YE-response by Terry Mortenson (YE) ===== and
counter-response by Greg Moore (OE) =====
• Understanding Genesis 1 by Peter Stoner [69 k + 20k] from 1st edition of A New Look at an Old Earth — (1st edition is free online, 2nd edition *is for sale)
Robert Newman:
he originally (in 1980s) was day-age, but maybe (I'll have to check more closely)
his views have been modified
• (early, 1985) Cosmogony and/or Science in Genesis 1 ===== (early,
1985)
• [what were his views in the "three views" book?]
• (recent, 200x) non-consecutive days (Newman & Phillips) w 2nd Edition
of book
• Are
the days of Genesis longer than 24 hours? The Bible says, "Yes!" by
Perry Phillips [16 k]
• Biblical evidence for an old Earth by Stephen Jones [4 k]
Comparing the Chronologies of Scripture and Science
This question is relevant for views claiming chronology, but not for views (like framework) proposing that the six days are not necessarily chronological.
Young-Earth
Chronology
In the first 144 hours, one apparent problem is the existence of three
24-hour
days before the sun is created in Day 4. But is this a real problem? A
young-earth view proposes many miracles during the first 6 days, and all that's
needed is a rotating earth and a non-solar source of light. / By
contrast, the
major challenge for a young-earth view is explaining the billions of years of
earth
history proposed
in conventional geology and astronomy, as described in AGE
OF THE EARTH — SCIENCE.
Chronology in a Day-Age View
• Day-Age
Interpretation and Science by Richard Deem [11 k]
• Testable
Creation Model (re: chronology) by Hugh Ross [7 k], plus Creation
Timeline (chart & table)
•
Interpreting
Genesis 1 as overlapping day-ages, by Greg Neyman [23 k]
•
The
order of events matters! by Terry Mortenson [young-earth, 7 k] and
response by Greg Moore [51 k]
•
Star Formation and
Genesis 1 by James Stambaugh [11 k + more]
• IOU - we need more criticisms & defenses
of day-age chronology
Days of Proclamation
• Days
of Proclamation by Glenn Morton [8 k] plus historical
background [7 k]
•
response
to Morton by Ross Olson: first 6 paragraphs [3 k] is about Genesis,
before he begins defending young-earth science
Analogical Days
Gap — Reconstruction
• We need resources. (but this view is much less popular now than it was a century ago)
• Problems (biblical & scientific) with Gap Theory by Rich Deem [
beyond the gap theory (pro-gap) =====
• Gap
and Ruin-Reconstruction by Ken Ham [31 k] anti-gap by YEC
• to check later -- more gap-pages from AIG, =====
• Replenishing
the Earth by Henry Morris [10 k] anti-gap by YEC
IOU — This section about ANE Cosmology will begin with an introduction for two types of questions about the science of Genesis 1: Does it intend to teach a chronological history? (re: the six days) Does it intend to teach scientific concepts? (re: the firmament,...) / Also, there will be a discussion of the correlation (and perhaps logical connection) between ANE "accomodation" and a lack of concordance and/or historicity. { Probably there will be an introductory overview with a few links here, and then a separate page with the overview-plus-more. }
• Speaking
to Christians about Science by Deborah Haarsma
includes (in slides 15-24 of a powerpoint file) an introduction to ANE in
Genesis 1, asks "Why would God use Ancient Near East
Cosmology to teach theological truths?" and answers "to
not confuse the author and original audience" and "to aid in communication to surrounding
cultures."
• Introduction
to Ancient Near-East Cosmology by Deborah Haarsma & Loren Haarsma [3 k]
• In Evolutionary
Creation by Denis Lamoureux, the second half [18 k out of 36 k
total] begins by describing "the greatest problem with evolutionary
creation..." and then explains the ancient near east cosmology (and
more) in Genesis 1
• Lamoureux's paper in PSCF, March 2008 (available on web soon)
• Making Sense of Genesis 1 by Rikki Watts (51 k)
• John Walton's Greatest Hits (Part 1 & Part 2 & Part 3) is a summary, by Mike Beidler, of Walton's ideas about ANE [6 k, 2 k, 4 k]
• the text of Genesis 1:6-8 (re: expanse or firmament) in five translations [1 k]
Young-Earth Responses (re: ANE and concordism/historicity)
• Genesis
according to Evolution by Terry Mortenson (young earth) — "If
evolution over millions of years was the way God created, He could easily
have said so in simple words." (5 k + 1k)
• Genesis
1-11: Myth or History? by David Engelsma (young earth) [30 k]
includes criticism of framework view
• ===== by
James Holding
There have been several exchanges, in ASA's journal, between Paul Seely
(proposing a non-concordance view) and others:
•1997: The
First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context by
Paul Seely and response by
Tom Pittman
• 2000: Paul
Seely (Genesis Revistited or Revised?) and Armin
Held & Peter Ruest [10 k]
PSCF-letter
•
2003-2004: Paul
Seely (Beyond the Hills of Concordism and Creation Science) & Carol
Hill & Thomas
Godfrey & John
McIntyre & P.G.
Nelson & Paul
Seely & Peter
Rüst & Thomas
Godfrey
• 2007-2008: Paul
Seely (Concordism and a Biblical Alternative: An Examination of Hugh Ross’s
Perspective) plus responses by Hugh
Ross & Paul
Seely [all in March 2006] followed [in June 2007] by responses from Carol
Hill (A Third Alternative to Concordism and Divine Accommodation: The Worldview
Approach) and [March 2008] Paul
Seely
And there is a discussion about the historicity of Genesis 1 in Bible Forums.
• Adam Willard says Genesis 1 is a Myth ===== [12 k]
IOU — relationship of ANE with Framework? (independent? compatible?)
Additional Resources
• Due
to space restrictions, many good pages cannot be included in this section; some
of these will
be in Additional Resources.
godandscience.org — http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html
• resources
from Reasons to Believe (check "The Bible and Science" & "Age
of the Earth")
answersincreation — http://answersincreation.org/interpret.htm
answersingenesis — http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp
icr —
asa—
• more from Conrad Hyers — Misinterpreting
the Creation Texts [39 k]
and The
Narative Form of Genesis 1 (Cosmogonic, Yes; Scientific, No) [42 k]
— from the journal of ASA in 1984
| A DISCLAIMER: In this page you'll find links to resource-pages expressing a wide range of views, which don't necessarily represent the views of the American Scientific Affiliation. Therefore, linking to a page does not imply an endorsement by ASA. We encourage you to use your own critical thinking to evaluate everything you read. |
THREE TYPES
OF LINKS in this website for Whole-Person Education:
An ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it. Above, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-adding, opening a new page in a new window. Below, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-replacing, opening a new page in this window. |
This page, written by Craig Rusbult (editor of ASA Science
Ed Website), is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/genesis.htm
and was revised
April 30, 2008
all links were checked-and-fixed on July 3, 2006
Homepage for ORIGINS QUESTIONS
|
||||||||||||||||||