Interpreting Genesis 1

This page contains these sections:
Overview  —  A Summary of Interpretations    No Consensus    Tools - Summaries - Reports
The 6 Days  —  The Logical 3-and-3 Framework    How long is a "yom-day"?    The Gap View
Is it scientific?  —  Chronology for Young Earth & Day-Age    Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology

 
Overview of Creationist Interpretations

        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 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?

        Two Interpretations?
        Although the title of this page says "Two Creationist Interpretations" it could be eight or more.  But it's two if we think of these as being two types of interpretations — chronological (with 6 or more variations) and non-chronological (also with variations) — plus questions about the "scientific concepts" we see in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible.
        Another perspective is that two types of interpretation are young-earth (biblical creationist) and old-earth (unbiblical evolutionary).  This us-and-them distinction is encouraged by prominent young-earth creationists who define their own view as "creation" while everything else is "evolution" that either is atheistic or is on the road to atheism.  The way they see it, a young-earth view that is based on the Bible is biblical creationism, but any old-earth view — even when it's proposed by a Christian whose beliefs in every way are based on the Bible — is unbiblical evolutionism.   This claim is examined in AGE OF THE EARTH - THEOLOGY by asking, "Is it wise, for faith and evangelism, to imply that A Young Earth and The Gospel of Jesus are linked in a ‘package deal’ where either both are true, or neither is true?"

 
        A Summary of Common Interpretations

        Chronology
        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 the days might be analogical days.  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, and maybe 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.   {* claims about chronology vary: a person who thinks "there is a framework" can claim "the history is also chronological" or "it's not chronological" or anything in-between}

        Concepts
        We can also ask questions about the concepts used to describe our world:  Maybe the descriptions in Genesis 1 were written specifically for the original readers, in their cultural context, by using the "scientific concepts" of familiar theories about physical reality (in their ancient near-eastern cosmology) for the purpose of more effectively challenging false theories about spiritual reality (in the polytheistic "nature religions" of surrounding cultures).   {more}

        Theology
        ALL interpretations acknowledge 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 (created by God) are intrinsically bad;  our problem is sin, not physicality.   And humans are special because God created us in His own image.

 
There is No Consensus
Linguistic scholars and theologians who are evangelical Christians, 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.    Creation-Relevant 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, amount of text)

Brief Summaries (neutral, not advocating any view)
• Four Views of the Biblical Creation Account (Calendar Day, Day-Age, Framework, Analogical Days) 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)

Comprehensive Creation Reports by theologically conservative denominations
• Report of the Creation Study Committee (2000) for Presbyterian Church in America:  This report is large, but the Table of Contents has links taking you to each section — which examine interpretations of Genesis 1 (Calendar Day, Day-Age, Framework, Analogical Days, and others) and much more — where you can decide what to read.   (233 k of text in main body + 37k in appendix)
• Report of the Committee to Study the Views of Creation (2004) for Orthodox Presbyterian Church:  It's even larger, but you can see what's available — sections on views (normal day, day of unspecified length, day-age, framework, analogical day) and much more — in the Table of Contents, and use an easy math trick to overcome the lack of links; for example, to find the Day-Age View (which the ToC says is on page 1637) take the last two numbers (37) and add 2 to get 39, then tell your PDF-reader to go to page 39.   (380 k + 280k)
 

---

ABOVE, interpretations disagree about two main questions:
• Why was Genesis 1 written with a six-day structure?
• Does Genesis 1 describe scientific principles and history?
BELOW, these questions about structure and science are explored.

---

 
The Six Days

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 in two sets of days (1-2-3 for separations, and 4-5-6 for fillings) that have parallels between related aspects of creation in three pairs of days: 1/4, 2/5, and 3/6.
        Acknowledging this framework is compatible with all major views of the creation process — young earth, old earth progressive, or old earth evolutionary — and with any combination of creation by miracles and/or natural process.  And a claim that the history in Genesis 1 is nonchronological is compatible with all views except traditional young-earth creation.   VIEWS OF CREATION
        It's important to recognize that non-chronological does not mean non-historical.  In the framework, creation history could be written in a way that is only topical (not chronological, not making any statements about the sequence of creation or its duration), or only chronological (if there is no framework *), or both chronological and topical.   /   * You can check it for yourself by reading the text of Genesis 1 carefully, with an open mind.  Do you see the framework with two logical patterns (123 456, 14 25 36) in the six days?

pro-framework:
• The Framework Interpretation of Genesis 1 in brief introductions by Rich Milner & Ray Bohlin (neutral), Craig Rusbult (pro), and Carol Hill (pro)  (9 k total)
• book review of The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation by Scott Yoshikawa  (11 k)
• Genesis One by Jimmy Akin, explains why the Framework Interpretation is "most plausible from a careful reading of the text" after he analyzes other views: Day-Age, Revelatory Days, Gap, and Ordinary Days.  (20 k + comments)
• Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary by Lee Irons, is a mixture of framework essentials (The First Three Days & The Two Triads) and extras ("Because it Had Not Rained" and The Seventh Day).  (17 k)
• Framework — Essentials & Extras by Craig Rusbult, looks at essentials (the framework's structure and its function in describing history) and extras (as in Meredith Kline's "rain" argument and "two registers" speculations, and more).  (12 k + 3k)
• Length of Days in Genesis by Rowland Ward, with ideas about essentials, extras, and more.  (54 k)
• Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony by Meredith Kline, about framework-extras, "rain" and "two registers"  (55 k + 10k, PSCF)
• Because it Had Rained by Mark Futato, is a commentary on Genesis 2:5-7 and the Genesis framework  (xx k)

pro-and-con:
• Report of the Committee to study the Framework Hypothesis for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (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.  (same text in different format)
• a condensed version of this is in OPC's Comprehensive Report and the PCA's report also has pros-and-cons.

anti-framework:
All of these papers (but some more than others) criticize extras not just essentials.
• The Literary Framework View is described and criticized by Wayne Grudem on pages 300-304 of his book about Systematic Theology.
• Is Genesis a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history? by Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland (chapter in Creation Answers Book)  (14 k)
• A Critique of the Literary Framework View by Andrew Kulikovsky, criticizes essentials and extras in claiming that "the presence of clearly defined literary devices in no way implies that the days are literary devices or that they are non-chronological" and concluding that "the language, syntax, narrative style and progression of thought, all indicate chronological history."  (34 k)
• Re-Visiting the Creation Days... Again by Mark Zylstra  (31 k)
• How far should evangelicals go? by Todd Beall, criticizes all old-earth views, especially framework  (27 k +9k)
• From Chaos to Cosmos: A Critique of the Framework Hypothesis by Joseph Pipa  (77 k + 23k)
• Critique of Framework Interpretation by Robert McCabe, is huge (in two parts:  94 k + 37k,  289 k + 60k)

 
YOM — What is the length of a "day" ?
IF the days are intended to be chronological , THEN how long were the days?
In the Bible, the Hebrew word "yom" has several different meanings.  What is the intended meaning of yom in Genesis 1?

        In a FRAMEWORK view (above) this question is not important if the six days are the logical framework for a topical history of creation that is not the chronological history.
        ANALOGICAL DAYS view — the six days are God's work days (measured in His time, not ours) that are analogous to our work days, with Genesis 1 setting a pattern for our 7-day week of work and rest.
        SOLAR DAYS view — each yom is a 24-hour day (a calendar day), and creation occurred during a period of 144 hours;  this is almost always a young-earth view, proposing that creation occurred recently, usually 6,000-10,000 years ago.
        DAY-AGE view — each yom is a long period of time;  this is almost always an old-earth view, proposing that creation occurred during a period lasting billions of years.
        INTERMITTENT DAYS — with 24-hour days that are separated by long periods of time.
        DAYS OF PROCLAMATION view — in six consecutive 24-hour days, God proclaimed what he would create, but the actual creations did not occur during this 144-hour period.
        The GAP view (ruin-and-reconstruction) is described below.

• 12 Views of Yom in Genesis 1 (strengths & weaknesses) by Norman Geisler  (5 k outline)

ANALOGICAL DAYS
• the main ideas are summarized in part of the Creation Report of PCA  (12 k)

24-HOUR SOLAR DAYS
• How long were the days of Genesis 1? by Russell Grigg, who looks at "the meaning of yom" and concludes that "God, through the ‘pen’ of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the ‘days’ of creation were literal earth–rotation days."  (10 k)
• "yom" means a 24-hour day by Ken Ham (young earth)  (40 k + 8k)
• In the Space of Six Days by Kenneth Gentry  (17 k)
• A View of Creation by Ashby Camp  (150 k in 52 pages, but much of it [almost half?] is footnotes)
• IOU — Answers In Genesis (young earth) has a links-section that will be searched/evaluated to find useful pages.

FLEXIBILITY (arguing against the necessity of a "solar days" view)
• 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)
• The Days Of Genesis: An Old-Earth View by Paul Copan (written as part of a dialogue with John MacArthur, who takes a young-earth view) claims that flexibility, regarding the timing of creation, is biblically justified  (12 k)

DAY-AGE
• Biblical Evidence for an Old Earth by Stephen Jones, is a brief outline (4 k) of arguments that are examined more closely in these pages:
• the meaning of "yom" by Rich Deem (10 k + 28k references)  /  also, Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days (14 k + 2k) plus end-of-page links that include literal interpretation in Genesis 1 (19 k + 12k)
• Word Study of "yom" by Greg Neyman (16 k)
• The Days of Creation: Hours or Eons? by Dick Fischer (32 k) PSCF  /  also, with a wider range of topics, Young-Earth Creationism: A Literal Mistake  (39 k + 3k)

INTERMITTENT DAYS
• proposes nonconsecutive 24-hour solar days;  each "evening and morning" is a 24-hour yom which begins a long creation period that still continues, so the creation periods overlap;  a diagram (on page 70) clarifies the timings, and the view is further explained by Robert Newman in pages 70-72 & 60-62;  other parts of Chapters 4-5 (pages 53-74) examine the meaning of yom and the chronology of creation.  These chapters are from the second edition (2007) of Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth by Robert Newman, Perry Phillips, and Herbert Eckelmann;  the "intermittent days" view was proposed by Newman & Eckelmann in the first edition (1977).

DAYS OF PROCLAMATION (Revelatory Days)
• Days of Proclamation by Glenn Morton, claims "Genesis 1 is the pre-planning of the universe."  (8 k)
• Days of Revelation or Creation? by Charles Taylor, is a young-earth criticism of this view
• response to Morton by Ross Olson  /  editor's suggestion:  skip the first part ("Does Genesis..." and "A Response..."), then (in the "Critique..." which begins, "Glenn Morton is a Christian. ...") read the first 6 paragraphs (3 k) which is about Genesis;  the remainder ("In all of this,...") is a typical attempt to defend young-earth science.

 
Gap Theory (Ruin-and-Reconstruction)
• The Gap Theory is summarized by allaboutcreation.org  (2 k)
• The Bible, Genesis and Geology is a comprehensive website defending Gap Theory.
• This view is much less popular now than it was a century ago, and is criticized by advocates of a young earth, including Monty White (6 k), Henry Morris (10 k), Ken Ham (31 k), and an old earth, Rich Deem (5 k), Hugh Ross (14 k).
 

---

 
Does Genesis 1 teach science?

Everyone agrees that Genesis 1 teaches theology.  But does it also teach science?  In Genesis 1 do we see the scientific what-and-when details of creation, as if the process had been videorecorded?  We'll begin with basic PRINCIPLES, followed by questions about comparing CHRONOLOGIES and comparing CONCEPTS.

 
PRINCIPLES: How can we wisely use the Two Books of God?
Here is the most important principle when we're thinking about scripture and nature:  We cannot compare the Bible with science, we can only compare a Bible-based theology (a fallible human interpretation of scripture) with a nature-based science (another fallible human interpretation) while trying to search for truth.

• Questions about theology and/or science (in conflict?) are examined in THE TWO BOOKS OF GOD — SCRIPTURE & NATURE.  Also,
  • In a "Timothy Test" a young-earth scientist, Russell Humphreys, asks us to imagine an intelligent nonscientist in biblical times who knows the scriptures well (similar to Timothy, the apprentice of Paul);  Humphreys claims that "if scripture really is straightforward and sufficient, then the meaning Timothy derives from the words is probably the meaning that God intended everybody to get."  Is this always a useful interpretive principle?   1. Perry Phillips (22 k) [old earth],  2. Russell Humphreys (11 k) [young earth],  3. Jonathan Sarfati (19 k) [young earth],  4. Perry Phillips (22 k), where page sizes (22 k,...) don't include end-notes.
  • Davis Young (old earth) and John Byl (young earth) discuss relationships between Scripture and Geology:  Part 1 and Part 2 by Young, response from Byl and reply by Young.  (from Westminster Theological Journal, 1989)
  • Genesis 1: Fact or Framework? by John MacArthur, gives young-earth arguments for the necessity of chronology  (6 k)
  • 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, including "bara" and "asah" which indicate the use of miracles and natural process during creation) plus science (about evolutions and age) written for the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in 1982  (old earth, 67 k + appendix by Norm Geisler + notes)

 
COMPARING CHRONOLOGIES in Scripture and Nature
IF the six days of Genesis are intended to describe the chronology of creation — but this is challenged by the framework view which says "it's probably not chronological" — THEN we can ask two questions:  A) How long are the days?   B) Do any young-earth or old-earth interpretations of the Genesis creation chronology match the nature chronology we have constructed from our scientific studies of nature?   Of course, the second question (about chronology) is irrelevant if the text was not intended to describe chronology;  a claim-for-timing cannot be wrong if there was no claim.

      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 an actual 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 for 3 days.  This is discussed in many of the pages-about-yom, by critics who question and advocates who defend.
      The major "time" challenges for a young-earth view are in its claims for what happened AFTER the first six days, in its attempts to find satisfactory arguments (*) against the long history of nature, lasting billions of years, that is the conclusion of modern geology and astronomy;  the old-earth conclusion of modern science is based on strong evidence in a wide variety of areas, as described in AGE OF THE EARTH & UNIVERSE — SCIENCE.   /   * young-earth explanations for the history of nature are based on flood geology (claiming that most of earth's geology and fossil record were formed in the global flood of Genesis 6-9) and denying the Big Bang (but this is the foundation, in modern astronomy, for successfully explaining what we observe in the rest of our universe)

      Day-Age Chronology
      In a day-age view, each "yom" is an "age" so creation occurred over a long period of time.  There are two main questions, specific and general, for Day-Age views:
      How could earth's ecosystems operate for a long time (in days 1-3) before the sun was created in day 4?  Day-Age proponents usually claim that the sun/moon/stars were created in Genesis 1:1 as part of "the heavens and the earth," then in Day 4 they became visible to an observer on the earth's surface, so they could "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years."  Is this a satisfactory explanation?
      In a Day-Age view, do the timings in Genesis 1 match the timings of what we observe in the history of nature?  To some extent this depends on definitions of what happened during each day, and whether (in a particular variation of the day-age view) the days overlap.  Are any of the Day-Age explanations satisfactory?  You can examine the pro-and-con arguments, and evaluate them for yourself.

Explanations of Day-Age Chronology:
A proposal that "the sun was not created on Day 4, instead this is when it became visible to an observer on the earth's surface" is in some of the earlier pages asking How long is a yom? and also in these pages that focus on chronology:
• Day-Age Interpretation and Science by Richard Deem  (11 k)
• Testable Creation Model (re: chronology & evolution) by Hugh Ross (7 k), plus Creation Timeline (chart & table)
• Genesis One by Robert Newman, is a detailed examination of the concepts and chronologies in Genesis 1:1 through Day 4  (24 k for pages 62-70a)
• Interpreting Genesis 1 by Greg Neyman  (23 k)
• A Summary of Chronology and Details of Day-Age Chronology by Peter Stoner (69 k + 20k) in A New Look at an Old Earth — (from 1st edition which is free online, 2nd edition is for sale)

Criticisms of Day-Age Chronology:
• Star Formation and Genesis 1 by James Stambaugh (young-earth) claims the sun, moon, and stars were CREATED on Day 4, not just made visible  (11 k + more)
• Terry Mortenson (young earth) says The Order of Events Matters and he doesn't think there is a match between Genesis 1 and day-age views (7 k);  Greg Moore responds in detail (51 k) about the timing of physical and biological creations, and more.
• From a different perspective but with the same goal (to find truth), another criticism of day-age chronology is The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context by Paul Seely (39 k), whose ideas (re: day-age concordism and cultural accomodation) are debated below.

 
COMPARING CONCEPTS in Scripture and in Modern Science
What kind of nature-descriptions do we see in Genesis 1?  Is it ancient science, modern science, or both, or neither?

Ancient Near East Cosmology
    As explained in the summary of views, maybe God, working through Moses, used familiar theories about physical reality (in ancient near-east science) in order to more effectively challenge false theories about spiritual reality (in polytheistic nature religions) and teach correct theology.
    As with other parts of the Bible, Genesis 1 was written FOR us but was not written TO us;  it was written to its original readers.   Each book in the Bible was written by a human author but (because God knows more than the human author) God could inspire the author to include ideas that would be useful for later readers, long after the original readers.  This is possible, but was it done by God in Genesis 1?  Christian scholars disagree.

• 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, explains how the Bible uses ANE Cosmology to clearly proclaim — for people in the time it was written — "the powerful theological message of God's sovereignty over all natural and spiritual forces."  (3 k)

• Comparing Biblical and Scientific Maps of Origins by Conrad Hyers, who says (agreeing with Calvin) that "biblical references to nature were not scientific statements, which then might be said to be in conflict with scientific data, observations, and theories."  Genesis 1 "is considerably different from...the natural sciences.  It has a theological agenda, aimed at affirming a monotheistic reading of the cosmos and rejecting the prevailing polytheistic reading. ...  [The descriptions of nature in] Genesis 1 are nonscientific [rather than unscientific];  they offer a different kind of map of the universe and our place within it."  (27 k)
• Evolutionary Creation by Denis Lamoureux, first outlines a theology that "fully embraces the foundational beliefs of the conservative Christian faith" and is consistent with an evolutionary history.  The second half of the page begins by acknowledging that "the greatest [perceived] problem with evolutionary creation is that it contradicts the traditional literal interpretation of the opening chapters of the Bible," but then he explains why — with a credible interpretation that uses what we know about ancient near-eastern cultures, and allows conservative theology — this perceived problem is not an actual problem.  (36 k)
• Making Sense of Genesis 1 by Rikki Watts, describes how ancient mid-eastern cultures viewed the world, and explains why the interpretation he recommends "not only makes good sense of the text within its cultural horizons, but puts the emphasis back where it belongs."  (51 k)

    Creationism, Concordism, or Accomodation?
    Most proponents of Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology think that God accomodated the original readers of Genesis by using (instead of changing) their incorrect views of nature and its history, and that other views try to force an agreement between the histories of nature proposed in science and theology;  the "forcing" could be done with either young-earth creationism (by first using Bible interpretation to get the history of nature, then adjusting science to make it fit) or old-earth concordism (first using science to get nature history, then adjusting biblical interpretation to make it fit) instead of letting scripture and nature "be what they are," without adjustment, when they are interpreted in theology and science, respectively.  Proponents of the other two views disagree.
    Theologically conservative proponents of all three views agree that the Bible is inerrant when it teaches about theology, in matters of faith and conduct;  but they disagree when we ask "what does the Bible teach (or not teach) about nature and its history?"

    The introduction above is an overview of Ancient Near East Cosmology (ANE), explaining what it is and how it may have influenced the concepts we see in Genesis and in other parts of the Bible.  This provides a foundation for understanding the pages below — beginning with a little more about ANE, before moving into responses and debates — which you can read in any order.  Just choose whatever looks interesting.

• Two highly respected scholars have invested their time in writing books (not web-pages) so they haven't written much that's on the internet, but you can read some "samplers" by them and about them:  John Walton — The Creation of Function (not things) in Genesis One and Bruce Waltke — Theology in Genesis.

Responses and Debates:

• Genesis according to Evolution by Terry Mortenson, says "If evolution over millions of years [*] was the way God created, He could easily have said so in simple words."   * Mortenson, along with most other prominent young-earth creationists, defines ‘evolution’ as any old-earth history, with or without miracles, so he is arguing against both progressive creation and evolutionary creation.  (5 k + 1k)
• Genesis 1-11: Is it history or parable? by Russell Grigg, asks "what is the biblical evidence to show that these first 11 chapters are actually a record of authentic historical facts?" and concludes that "Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened."  (10 k)
• Problems in Methods of Interpretation: Genesis 1-11 (Part 1 & Part 2) by Noel Weeks, is an overview of young-earth proposals for interpreting Genesis as literal history.  (17 k, 15 k)

One focus for debate is the meaning of "raqia" in Genesis 1:6-8 (and elsewhere) — Does raqia mean a solid dome or open sky?
• Here is the text of Genesis 1:6-8 in 5 translations, using 4 different words for raqia  (1 k)
• The Firmament and the Water Above by Paul Seely, who says "the historical evidence...shows that the raqiac was originally conceived of as being solid and not a merely atmospheric expanse. ...  it is not the purpose of Gen 1: 7 to teach us the physical nature of the sky, but to reveal the creator of the sky.  Consequently, the reference to the solid firmament ‘lies outside the scope of the writer's teachings’ and the verse is still infallibly true." (34 k + 9k footnotes)
• Seely on the Waters by James Jordan, is a gentle criticism concluding that "Genesis 1 could readily have been read by ancient people in terms of their cosmology (though with some difficulty given their view of a solid firmament), but it can also be read by us in terms or our more developed and sophisticated cosmology.  God has written it in such a way that it is valid for all times and seasons of human experience and understanding, for those with ears to hear and eyes to see."  (11 k)
• Is the raqiya (‘firmament’) a solid dome? by James Patrick Holding, an un-gentle critic who thinks "the enemies of Christ have acquired an ally...who has also claimed that the Bible makes scientific errors; in giving ammunition to sceptics and others who want to destroy the Bible... in some ways Seely is more dangerous to Christians than atheists" and, re: the text, "the description of the raqiya is so equivocal and lacking in detail that one can only read a solid sky into the text by assuming that it is there in the first place" so we can "justifiably understand Genesis to be in harmony with what we presently know about the nature of the heavens."  (32 k)  /  Holding also disputes a claim, made by Seely and others, that in the Bible the earth is a flat disc.  (18 k)
• Lessons from the Heavens: On Scripture, Science and Inerrancy by Denis Lamoureux, analyzes raqia and suggests that we "reconsider the popular assumption that statements in the Bible align with the facts of nature," asks "should our scientific views determine the orthodoxy of our faith," affirms biblical inerrancy — "my central hermeneutical assumption emphasizes a thoroughly committed and unapologetic submission to the Word of God" — but claims we should define inerrancy the way it's defined in the Bible:  he agrees with the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy when they "deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself," and he thinks "scientific concordism is an alien preunderstanding and not an inerrant feature of Scripture."  His main ideas about inerrancy-and-science are in two sections, Modern Evangelical View of Inerrancy and Biblical Inerrancy without Scientific Concordism, on pages 9-12.  (37 k + 20k)

• Cosmogony and/or Science in Genesis 1 by Robert Newman (5 k), an old-earth creationist who proposes an intermittent days interpretation, responds to articles in the journal of ASA (1984) by Conrad Hyers — Misinterpreting the Creation Texts (39 k) and especially The Narrative Form of Genesis 1 (Cosmogonic, Yes; Scientific, No) (42 k) — by saying that "the major problem I have with Hyers' approach is not so much his claim that the Genesis account is rebutting pagan cosmogonies (which may have real merit) as with his rejection of the possibility that the account might also be doing anything else, such as providing scientific, historical or chronological information. ...  The Bible claims God as its coauthor.  We should not therefore limit its statements to only what an ancient human could have known."

• In 1997, Paul Seely criticized the chronology of day-age views and in 2000 he wrote Genesis Revistited or Revised? criticizing a defense of concordism by Armin Held & Peter Ruest, who wrote a counter-response. (10 k)
• More recently, in 2007-2008, the journal of ASA has run a series about concordism and accomodation, in a paper-with-reponses by Paul Seely and Hugh Ross (links are below *) followed by a third alternative (The Worldview Approach) from Carol Hill, a response-paper by Paul Seely and a letter by Carol Hill (available September 2008).  (34 k, 18 k, 15 k and 23 k, 16 k, xx k).   * Much of the discussion between Ross and Seely is about the science (the data that's available,...) of human origins and Noah's flood, but if you want to focus on theological principles (especially regarding Genesis 1) you can read:  most of the first page (until "Ross and Adam") and final section ("A Biblical Approach to Science and Scripture" on pgs 42-44) of Concordism and a Biblical Alternative by Paul Seely;  the introduction (pg 46) and ending (from "Charge #9 onward) of Additional Explanations on Concordism by Hugh Ross;  the intro (pg 51) and ending (from #9 onward) in Reading Modern Science into Scripture by Paul Seely.
• for more about Paul Seely and his critics, Science in Genesis - Creationism, Concordism, or Accomodation?
 

 

  
 You can find related pages in
AGE OF THE EARTH — THEOLOGY.

Homepage for ORIGINS QUESTIONS

  Search the Website

Whole-Person Education for Science and Faith   HOME Effective Teaching School Options Learning Skills Thinking Skills The Nature of Science Origins Questions World Views ASA