Northern Kentucky's Evening Interdenominational Community Bible Study Text of Presentation, Lesson 1, Gen 1:1-2:3 Click Here for Lesson 1 Photos Click Here to return to GENESIS Home Page

Genesis 1:1-2:3
The Creation

The purpose of these “wrap-up sessions” is to bring together our discussions, and summarize what we have learned. But with Genesis 1, I decided to take a slightly different tact and focus on an attitude typical of many educated, thoughtful, Christians. We believe the bible is ultimate truth – the revealed word of our creator-God. Yet we’re sometimes schizophrenic about Genesis 1 . . . uncomfortable because we think it conflicts with science, and we don’t wish to be either anti-intellectual or anti-science. But no one needs to think that way . . . and as best I can do in 20 min or so tonight, I’ll explain why.

Let’s look at science first. All hard science is based on theory verified by reproducible experiments . . . but it’s impossible to repeat the creation event to verify cosmological theories! The best we can do is point-check theory against after-effects we can observe – things like cosmic background radiation for the Big Bang Theory. Theories are rejected if they predict the wrong after-effects . . . but that doesn’t mean they’re right if they predict the correct after-effects – it only means maybe they’re right!

And don’t think science is always objective . . . it’s often skewed by assumptions based on worldview. For instance, when Einstein first formulated General Relativity, he realized it implied the universe had a beginning . . . a “zero time,” before which there was neither space nor time. This is part of the modern “Big Bang” theory. But in Einstein’s day, scientists believed the universe is eternal: without beginning. Hence Einstein introduced a “fudge factor” – the “Cosmological Constant” ? – into General Relativity to force it to predict an eternal universe. Einstein let his worldview skew his science. But theory failed to match observed after-effects; General Relativity worked only when the “Cosmological Constant” was removed, predicting spacetime indeed had a beginning; and Einstein conceded the “Cosmological Constant” was the worst mistake of his life!

Yet physics is the purest of the sciences. Paleontology – the study of fossils – shows just how big a role “worldview” can play. Evolution by Natural Selection is taken as fact. The assumption seems to be: there isn’t a God, so how could He create either the universe or life? . . . let’s look for something else. One often gets the impression data is forced to fit the paradigm – like pounding a square peg into a round hole. For instance, Genesis says birds and “sea creatures” were created on the “5th Day,” but the prevalent evolutionary theory is that birds evolved as winged reptiles: either as running dinosaurs or as tree-living mini-crocodiles. Evolutionists on each side produce devastating proofs why the other theory is wrong . . . but no one seems willing to say both theories may be wrong: that birds were created as birds.

We talked last week about Natural Selection, a theory which postulates life generated spontaneously and evolved gradually, with random beneficial mutations making successive improvements to a species until, over time, a new species evolves. Yet the problems with this theory are overwhelming:

1. Scientists have never observed spontaneous generation of life

2. There is no evidence of mutations which add genetic information . . . just evidence of genetic deterioration

3. “Natural Selection” was formulated ~150 years ago, about the same time as cell theory. Its proponents knew nothing of genetics, they had limited fossil records, and they were completely ignorant of the complexity of life, revealed by science over the past 50 years.

4. The fossil record contains no intermediates from one species to another – no “missing links” – and it shows multiple phyla appearing at about the same time (consistent with the biblical creation story)

5. Characterization of DNA reveals incredible cell complexity – meaning evolution via natural selection requires an astronomical age of the earth: much longer than the 4.6 Gyr estimated by radiological dating . . . or it requires a theory of punctuated evolution which has never been observed.

6. “Irreducible Complexity” is displayed in many components of living organisms with multiple interdependent parts, such as the bacterial flagellum, the human eye, and dolphin sonar. Since nothing works unless all parts are in place, it’s difficult to envision a viable evolutionary path toward “Irreducibly Complex” systems.

The bottom line is: we can’t take the pronouncements of modern scientists as “gospel.”

So that makes it easy, huh? The bible is the word of God, so we just follow it literally, and don’t worry about what scientists say! Yes and no! Paul says in Romans that the creation is evidence of God, and man is “without excuse” (Rom 1:20). We ignore the scientific evidence around us to our peril!

Furthermore, although modern English is a fairly precise language in which words generally have clear meaning, biblical Hebrew is a highly contextual language with limited vocabulary: the same word can have many different meanings, depending on how it is used. Yet the bible didn’t come with God’s official lexicon. Translation of the Old Testament is a laborious process. Scholars compare each Hebrew word with its use in other parts of the bible; they attempt to determine what the author is trying to say from context and choose English words to convey that. It would be easier if there were other contemporary Hebrew documents for comparison purposes – but there aren’t. And in the case of Genesis 1 . . . context is particularly difficult. With what can we compare the creation of the universe? There is no comparison!

So can we just figure out how the ancient Hebrews understood Genesis 3000 years ago and go with that? That’s difficult, too, because written Jewish tradition doesn’t go back that far. The oldest written Hebrew documents are the Dead Sea Scrolls, from the time of Jesus. The Mishnah was complied around 200 AD, as were the oldest translations of the Old Testament into Greek and Aramaic (though the Greek translation was traditionally done earlier). None of these are close to the time of Moses (who we believe wrote Genesis) – or even Ezra (a liberal choice of its author)! And there is no written record that Jesus ever explained Genesis 1. So we’ve just got to do the best we can!

For all these reasons, evangelical scholars disagree on how to interpret Genesis 1:

1. The Calendar Day interpretation has been “traditional” since the 17th century, when Archbishop Ussher’s chronology was incorporated into the King James Bible as if it were fact. Proponents of this interpretation believe the world was created in six, 24-hour days, rejecting scientific evidence for an old earth and older universe – claiming everything was done by Divine fiat, with the laws of physics put into effect on God’s day of rest. This “traditional” point of view has strong scriptural support . . . and its proponents even include scientists who offer their own scientific theories.

2. The Day Age interpretation is the most popular alternative to the Calendar Day approach. It holds that the “Days” of Genesis 1 are indefinite periods of time . . . consistent with scientific data, scholarly translations of Biblical Hebrew, and much Jewish and Christian tradition.

3. The Gap Theory holds there is a long gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 . . . that God’s first creation was marred by Satan’s rebellion, causing Cod to destroy the would. Gen 1:2 is then translated: “Now the earth became formless and void.” The scriptural support is strong enough that this viewpoint was included in the Scofield Reference Bible, and a long gap accommodates scientific evidence for an old earth.

4. The Calendar Day with Gaps Theory holds each “Day” of God’s creative acts was a 24 hour day – but the days were separated by gaps of millions or billions of years. This is essentially a modification of the Calendar Day Theory to make it consistent with scientific evidence for an old earth.

5. Allegorical Interpretations believe the “days” of Genesis 1 are figurative, not meant to be taken literally. It has strong scriptural support, because many parts of the Old Testament are obviously meant to be taken figuratively. One such view, the Analogical Interpretation suggests creation is placed in a sequence of “days” to make analogy between God’s work of creation and man’s work week – 6 days of work followed by one day of rest – because man was formed in the “image” of God.

6. Another variant, the Framework Interpretation, suggests the 6 “days” of creation are actually 3 allegorical events stated twice: the first (days 1-3) are generalizations, and the second (days 4-6) fill in the details. This might seem a stretch . . . but it’s more logical laid out in a matrix, and based on our knowledge of photosynthesis, it’s the most straightforward way to explain how plant life appears on “day 3,” but the sun doesn’t appear until “day 4.”

And last weak I shared the theory that 6 days in heavenly time might equal 13.7 Gyrs in earth time based on time dilation. The bottom line is: evangelical scholars interpret Genesis 1 in at least 6 different ways – all faithful and valid interpretations of scripture!

Let’s return to the original thesis: if we believe the bible is the literally true revealed word of our creator-God, we need never feel uncomfortable because we think this belief conflicts with science! Mike Purdon commented last week that the secular world has adopted an “Old Testament” view of science: “don’t understand it, just accept it on faith!” This is necessary because – since it’s impossible to reproduce the creation event – all scientific theories contain a large element of speculation . . . in addition to elements of truth! The entire basis for the modern field of “Intelligent Design” is that it’s more logical to believe in a creator-God than in natural selection. And it is!

Yet coupled with the imprecision of scientific creation is a similar imprecision in the biblical creation story . . . an imprecision driven home by the existence of no less than 6 different interpretations by evangelical Christian scholars who are experts in biblical Hebrew and Jewish and Christian tradition.

But to say both science and the biblical Hebrew of Genesis 1 are imprecise isn’t satisfying, either. Is this the modern culture of relativism creeping into Christian beliefs? No . . . it’s a Christian tradition perhaps best stated by John Chrysostom, a 4th century bishop and scholar: “In essentials, Unity; in non-essentials, Charity.”

The bottom line is, there are certain essentials, common to all faithful interpretations of Genesis 1, and consistent with science. When Genesis 1:1 says “God created the heavens and the earth,” the Hebrew word translated “created” means to make a completely new thing – which is why ancient Jewish tradition holds the universe and time – spacetime – were created from nothing. By contrast, God uses existing materials to make living plants and animals. There is no conflict with science in these two statements; they are consistent with the Big Bang Theory and with the atomic theory of matter.

From creation, the universe developed into what we observe today via a sequence of events, and God was directly involved to one degree or another in that development. God created life – it didn’t appear spontaneously – and God was directly involved in a sequence of events through which all kinds of life came into being. Except for belief in God’s involvement, there is no conflict with science in these statements, either. If evolutionists say belief in God is based on faith, not evidence – which is true – Christians can counter that belief in spontaneous generation of life and in evolutionary processes which add genetic information are also based on faith; there is no evidence for either.

God created man – not as just another mammal, but as the pinnacle of creation, as “the image of God.” Then God “rested.” God was still present and still in control, but everything was self-sustaining – with the laws of physics governing the physical world, with the magnificent biological systems we are only now beginning to appreciate governing the continuance of life, and with man endowed with “free will.” Again no conflict with science; there is no dispute man was the last lifeform to appear; arguments center on man’s specialness (or lack thereof).

In summary, Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally – but literally within the context of the biblical Hebrew in which it was written . . . and that means within a broad outline of multiple, faithful, scholarly interpretations. And nothing in Genesis 1 is inconsistent with the broad outline of scientific knowledge. Problems come only when we move from certainty to speculation – and try to make our speculative theories a litmus test for faithfulness . . . and by the word “faithfulness” I’m including not only faithfulness to Christian beliefs, but also faithfulness to the anti-religion of secular humanism. I can’t advise secular humanists . . . but as far as Christians are concerned, we should strive to practice in Genesis 1 the same tolerance that for almost 1700 years we have strived for in other areas of belief: “In essentials, Unity; in non-essentials, Charity.”