Thesis Statement
This study will take a brief look at some of the views of the creation account
in the book of Genesis, point out weaknesses of each, determine which ones
conservatives embrace, and best align with the teachings of the Scriptures.
Introduction
For centuries the interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis
was pretty static in that the commonly held teaching that the narrative was to
be interpreted literally was accepted by the majority of the church leadership
and those in attendance. However, with the advent of the enlightenment and the
introduction of rationalism and empiricism, the historicity of the book has
been called into question.
Specifically, it is the first two chapters of the book that draws the most ire
from those who find its account to be on par with such writings as the Epic of
Gilgamesh or the stories of Zeus. [1]
Others will concede that upper-story religious truth can certainly be found in
the text, but will deny its historical value and the actual validity of the
text where it seems to contradict the findings of modern science.
If indeed the creation account is
not a literal account, but simply an upper-story narrative that is only meant
to present moral or religious truth, how does that impact the teachings of the
Bible? In this study, we will take a look at some of the various
interpretations of the creation account, which ones conservatives hold to, and
why. Of course, the size constraints of this paper greatly limit the depth to
which any one of these topics can be discussed.
Views of Creation Account
Mythology
The first view to consider is the
mythological. According to John Walton, author of the NIV Application
Commentary on Genesis, the mythical approach of interpreting this book is
the “most troubling category for those who take the Bible seriously.” [2]
The reason for this is because in our modern society the term almost
automatically implies a “judgment that the story is not true or at least
unhistorical.” [3]
However, that is not necessarily the way those in the ancient world saw
mythology. Instead, they saw myths as a means of explaining the world around
them in story which usually had religious and moral purposes. Mythology to the
ancient world was like science in our own in that both were and are attempts to
understand cause and effect. C. John Collins, professor of Old Testament at
Covenant Theological Seminary insists that with that in mind, it is wise to shy
away from triumphalism by arrogantly implying that our modern world is more
sophisticated than theirs. [4]
On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the very word “myth” does by
its very nature implies that not every aspect of the story is to be taken as absolute
truth even though it is told as such. Millard Erickson, author of Christian
Theology, adds to this by pointing out that myth is a literary device that
is used to convey a “supernatural or transcendent truth in earthly form. [5]
Those who hold this view will contend that the Bible was never meant to have
any authority in regards to empirical issues such as history or science.
Instead, the authority of the Bible only rests in issues of religion and
therefore serves to only bring men into a “proper relationship with God” [6]
Those who hold this view usually embrace Naturalistic Evolution instead of
Biblical Creation. However, they do so by ignoring the clear intent of the
author. One example is that the writer clearly intended the book to be an
actual historical account due to its narrative style, attention to genealogies
(e.g., descendants of Adam and Noah), and dates (e.g., the exact date in
relation to Noah’s life that the rain began to fall).
Those who view the book of Genesis
as mythology only do so by ignoring the clear intent of the author. One example
is that the writer clearly intended the book to be an actual historical account
due to its narrative style, attention to genealogies (e.g., descendants of Adam
and Noah), and dates (e.g., the exact date in relation to Noah’s life that the
rain began to fall).
Pictorial Day
A second view to consider is called the Pictorial Day. It is often times also
referred to as the Revelation Theory. In essence, it says that the days in
Genesis 1 are indeed “literal days of twenty-four hours each, but they are days
only in the life of Moses. [7]
The basic view is that in those six literal days, God revealed to Moses exactly
how creation occurred, and as God spoke, Moses recorded what was said to him in
a six day format.
This view also has accommodationalism in mind as that it
still maintains the literal twenty-four hour days and yet also allows the
scientific community to have the long periods of time that they demand for the
formation of the Earth through the means of evolution. However, just like the
Mythological view, it again discounts the clear intent of the author in that he
clearly intended the book to be an historical account.
Old Earth Creationism
A third view of the creation account
is called Old Earth Creation or Progressive Creation. Like their
Young Earth counterparts, they do believe that the emergence of different life
forms was due to the actions of an intelligent creator. [8]
The difference between the two is that this group does not accept the
historical account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 to be literally true.
Instead, they choose to view creation through the lens of science and insist
that one can be a Christian and believe in Old Earth Creation as long as “one
accepts the central doctrine of salvation through a profession of faith.” [9]
The most glaring problem that Old
Earth Creationists face is that their theory does not fit the scientific
evidence. In order to resolve the discrepancies between the Bible and Science,
they insist in what is called the Day-Age and Gap Creation ideas. The Day-Age
idea says that creation was by God, but he did it in “God-length days that may
have lasted thousands, if not millions, of years.” They accompany the Day-Age
idea with Gap Creation which says that “all life emerged in cycles of creation
followed by long periods of stasis” that were repeated continually until humans
were created.” [10]
Young Earth Creationism
A fourth view of creation is that of
Young Earth Creationism. By most conservative scholars, this group is
considered to be the most faithful to the Scriptures. Those who hold this view
take the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 literally. This is to say that God
created the heavens and the earth in six literal twenty-four hour periods. This
means that God created everything by fiat. That is to say that God merely
spoke, and it was created just as Hebrews 11:3 implies, “By faith we understand
that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not
made out of things which are visible.” (NASB). [11]
Young Earth Creationists also insist
that earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old. And, they conclude that the
fossil record bears out that a cataclysmic event did take place in time past,
and that event is the worldwide flood that is recorded in Genesis 6.
Of course, this view does have its
challenges. One of those is that modern dating methods do place the age of the
earth much older than 10,000 years. These methods used by geologists today
include carbon-13 and carbon-12 ratios which actually place the oldest fossils
as far back as 3.86 billion years. [12]
Also, to the modern scientific community, the idea of a supreme being calling
things out of nothing is absurd and belongs strictly to the religious
community.
Gap Theory
A fourth view of the creation
account is what is called the Gap theory that first made its way into the
mainstream as a result of the printing of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909.
This theory assumes a gap of time between versus 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. It is
during this time that they postulate that a pre-Adamic world once existed and
was subsequently destroyed in the rebellion of Lucifer and the fallen angels
that are referred to in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14.
The reason for this view is found in
Genesis 1:2 which says that “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was
over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface
of the waters”. At issue is the word “was” which they believe should be
translated as “became”. In other words, the earth became formless and
void as a result of some act of judgment in time past. It is in this “gap” of
time that they conclude that “all the ages that are demanded by geologists
occurred and ended with the glacial age”. [13]
The theory also explains why there is the apparent contradiction in how old
science says the earth is and the biblical account.
The theory goes on to surmise that
in Genesis 1:3, God starts the process of reparation as described in the six
days of creation. The rational for this view comes from a “desire to reconcile
the voluminous scientific evidence for Earth’s antiquity” and still concedes
the six literal days of creation. [14]
In the end though, too much of the theory rests on the translation of the word
“was” and the questionable use of the phrase “formless and void.”
Naturalistic Evolution
The final view for the purposes of
this paper is what is referred to as Naturalistic Evolution. Before 1900, the
issue of evolution was a non-controversial subject. Everyone for the most part
embraced the biblical view of creation either by conviction or conformity.
However, the issue of evolution was brought to the forefront by the Progressive
Movement in the early 20th Century in a series of court cases that
eventually came to be known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. [15]
In essence, Naturalistic Evolution
teaches that all creation is purely accidental and that no supreme power was
involved at all. It presupposes that everything came into existence in a
randomly generated sequence through mutation and natural selection. [16]
Of course, this view by necessity requires millions, if not billions of years,
for these mutations to take place. Charles Ryrie puts it this way, “If one were
to reduce the process to a formula it would look like this: M(utations) +
N(atural) S(election) x T(ime) = Evolution.” [17]
It is interesting that in regards to
the necessity of time for the evolutionary process to take place, Tremper
Longman points out in his book How to Read Genesis:
“Many modern readers stumble over the six days of creation.
They ask how it could have happened so quickly. It is interesting to note that
before the nineteenth century and the work of Charles Darwin the question was
just the opposite. For instance, in the sixteenth century John Calvin
encountered skepticism concerning the biblical account because it took God so
long to create. The biblical account seemed ridiculous to many readers in the
sixteenth century because they knew that God could create instantaneously if he
so willed.” [18]
However, in the end, Naturalistic
Evolution does have its weaknesses as well. Some of these include issues with
mutations that tend to be overwhelmingly useless or even detrimental, natural
selection which rarely brings about improvements, time for probability and
chance, and the second law of thermodynamics which says that all things move from
orderliness to chaos.
Biblical View
The final view that needs to be
considered is the Biblical View. What does the Bible say in regards to the
creation account? These issues include, but certainly are not limited to, the
uniqueness of man, the origin of sin, and the teachings of Jesus and the
Apostle Paul.
In regards to the uniqueness of man,
the New Testament teaches that man is the pinnacle of God’s creation in that he
was created in the image of God unlike any of the other creatures before him.
Millard Erickson says of this, “There is something that gives humanity value
from above. The value of humans is not that they are the highest products of
the evolutionary process thus far but that the supreme eternal being has made
them in his own image. It is not our estimation of ourselves, but the judgment
of the holy God that gives us value.” [19]
The Bible also teaches that man
rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden when they chose disobedience rather
than obedience in regards to the Tree of Knowledge as recorded in Genesis 3.
That single act of rebellion brought sin into God’s creation for the first
time. As a result of that sin, death came upon all mankind both spiritually and
physically. That is why Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death, but
the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” And because of
the wages of man’s sin that was introduced into the world by Adam and Eve, “God
demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
Also, the teachings of both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul are predicated on
the historicity of the creation account. For example, Jesus’ response to the
religious leaders in regards to divorce, Jesus referenced the creation account
when he said in Mark 10:6-8, “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM
MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.”
Jesus clearly believed in an historic Adam and Eve.
Also, the Apostle Paul referred to Adam and Eve on several occasions. When
speaking to the Romans he said that “death reigned from Adam until Moses, even
over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a
type of Him who was to come (Rom. 5:14). Also, when speaking to the
Corinthians, Paul said that “in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be
made alive (1 Cor. 15:22), and that "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING
SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45).
Also, when speaking to Timothy in 1
Timothy 2:13-14 he said, “For it was Adam who was first created, and
then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman
being deceived, fell into transgression.” It is also clear that the Apostle
Paul believed in the creation account as well.
Conclusion
After looking at several alternative
views of the creation account, the question is now which ones agree with or
contradict the writings of the Bible? Most conservatives hold to the view of
Old Earth Creationism, Young Earth Creationism, or the Gap Theory. On the other
hand, most conservative evangelicals categorically reject the Mythological,
Pictorial Day, and Naturalistic Evolutionary views.
The reason for these views by
conservative evangelicals is because Old Earth Creationism, Young Earth
Creationism, and the Gap Theory all involve an intelligent creator. Of course, they
strongly disagree on particulars such as whether the creation account in
Genesis 1 and 2 should be taken literally, or that something happened between
verses 1 and 2, but they all concur that an intelligent creator (God) was
involved.
On the other hand, their rejection
of the Mythological, Pictorial Day, and Naturalistic Evolutionary views is
because those views reject the account in Genesis 1 and 2 as factual, deny the
involvement of an intelligent creator, and they embrace Naturalistic Evolution
and its view of random mutation and natural selection which contradicts the
teachings of the Bible and thus “impugns the authority of Christ and His
apostolic witnesses”. [20]
Bibliography
Charles, J. Daryl. Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical
Conversation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2013.
Collins, C. John. Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker House Books, 1998.
Hitt, Austin M. (2009). The Evolution of Creationism in
America. Science Educator, 18(1) (2009): 58-68, accessed December 5,
2014, http://search.proquest.com/docview/228783493?accountid=12085.
Hunt, Steven A. ed., Perspectives on Our Father Abraham:
Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2010
Longman, Tremper III. How to Read Genesis. Downers
Grove, IL: Paternoster Press, 2005.
Phillips, John. Exploring Genesis: An Expository
Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1980.
Ross, Hugh. The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and
the Accuracy of Genesis. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998.
Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic
Guide to Understanding Truth. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1999.
Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis in Space and Time.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972.
Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.
[2] John H. Walton. The
NIV Application Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001),
Kindle Location 423.
[7] John Phillips. Exploring
Genesis: An Expository Commentary (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,
1980), 36.
[8]
Austin M. Hitt. (2009). The Evolution of Creationism in America. Science
Educator, 18(1) (2009):
58-68 accessed December 5, 2014,
http://search.proquest.com/docview/228783493?accountid=12085.
[11] All Scripture
quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible, Lockman Foundation,
1995.
[12] Hugh Ross. The
Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis.
(Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998), 29.
[17] Charles C. Ryrie. Basic
Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Truth (Chicago: Moody
Publishers), 197.
[20] J. Daryl Charles. Reading
Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,
2013), 53.
No comments:
Post a Comment