Genesis 1&2 Making Sense of Our Founding Stories

An Opening Question: “How should we read the ‘days’ of Genesis One?”

Option One: Literal Days 7 and only 7 days… each comprised of 24 (solar) hours…

Supposed Strengths Takes “day” (yom) in its “normal” sense Takes “evening” and “morning” normally Takes God’s Word at face value in spite of the claims of modern science Refuses ever to start the habit of using “symbolic interpretation” to avoid the obvious, literal meaning of the Bible.

Weaknesses (preliminary) Clashes with most modern science May falsely assume that what is difficult to believe, ought to be believed. May falsely assume that a non-literal interpretation is by nature an evasion May falsely assume that an “evolutionary” understanding of cosmic origins and earth- life is necessarily atheistic.

Weaknesses (more serious) Difficulty in maintaining a “literal” understanding of “firmament” Awkwardness of “day” and “night” before there were sun and moon Strangeness of light and darkness being separated on day 4, if already having been separated on day 1 The suggestions of “indirect creation”

Weakness (most serious) Not simply differences of emphasis and viewpoint between Genesis 1 & 2, but… Differences in SEQUENCE between Genesis 1 & 2…. …Differences that cannot be reconciled through “literal reading”

Crucial Sequential Difference: Gen. 1 Gen 2 PlantsAnimalsHumans MalePlantsAnimalsFemale

Possible Reactions to this Sequential Difference They MUST be resolved, so that the two chapters share the same sequence (NIV) What can you expect? An ancient document, constructed by persons not attuned to detail.. Perhaps…the writer(s) were very alert to every detail, but were theologically, rather than a procedurally focused.

Option TWO: Buy More Time

Buying More Time, Because… Most scientific data suggests that the universe, the earth and the life forms upon the earth…. …are much older than… 6,000 years of age. [consider the 4004 BC Usher date]

Strategies for “Buying Time” Day-Age Theory: Understand the “days” as “ages”, just as “one day is thousand years” Ps. 90:4; II Peter 3:8 Gap Theory: One world created in Gen. 1:1; its destruction in 1:2; and re-constitution in 1:3 Apparent Age Theory: God created a world that “looked” a certain age, just as he created Adam who “looked” about 25 (???) years old.

More Strategies… Selective Day Theory: The six days of Genesis One are six particular days out of many millions of days Logarithmic Theory: Day One might have lasted 6 billion years, Day Two might have lasted 2 billion years, Day Three might have lasted 1 billion years, (and so progressively reduced to match present cosmic evolutionary theory)

But the Problem is….. …that ADDING MORE TIME to Genesis 1… …does not bring Genesis 1… …into conformity with… …modern theories of cosmic evolution!

What is Presently Thought? Big Bang 15 billion Years ago Present Formation of Stars Formation of Planets NOTE: Earth is Commonly held To be about 5 billion yrs old

Sequence Comparison Primitive Stars Advanced Stars Planets Planet Satellites The Earth Sun Stars Planets Moon Contemporary Genesis 1

Option Three To conclude that Genesis 1 & 2 are to be read more “theologically” than “procedurally”

Consider: If: Genesis 1 & 2 are to be read as intending to describe the specific process by which God created the world, And, if it is true that these two stories cannot be brought into harmony,

Then…One must conclude… That story #1 is inaccurate, or That story #2 is inaccurate, or That both stories are inaccurate… AND.. That the writer(s) or compiler(s) of Genesis ineptly joined-wrote two stories which set forth two irreconcilable sequences

But Rather, If we assert that the Biblical writers were fully aware that these two stories are procedurally irreconcilable Then… We may be strongly drawn to conclude that: questions of exactly HOW God actually created the world are somewhat “beside the point,” and probably “unanswerable” from a Biblical perspective.

In Other Words, Genesis 1 & 2 may not be designed to tell us: How long God took Or God’s actual steps Or what strategies God employed… But, Genesis 1& 2 may be designed to tell us: What kind of God God is, and what humans are What God’s intentions are for the world and humans What sort of relationship we may have with this God

So What about the 7 Days? It is likely that they are a creative and imaginative literary “framework”, Into which is placed a “story of divine creation…” Which enables the writer to depict God as.. A diligent worker (note the work week)…

(continued) Who is Powerful and Effective in action, Caring and Providential, Deliberate and Intentional, Passionate about “Beauty” (the good) Sharing of Himself, Distinct from creation, yet committed to it, The foundational “cause” of all, …..yet investing independent causation within the created order.

So….What about “Evolution?” Consider First: The curious openness of Genesis One to “indirect creation” (see 1:20, 1:24, implied in 1:27???) Consider Second: The link between “dust”as the material out of which the man was created Consider Third: The freedom we must give God to create however God wished

(continued) Consider Fourth: The philosophical possibility that “chance” itself may be employed as an instrument to accomplish a desired end… Consider Fifth: That Darwin himself did not consider his evolutionary theory as necessarily atheistic

(continued) Consider Sixth: That the history of the debate over “evolution” has become a highly charged religiously, with both camps unnecessarily polarized. Consider Seventh: That the “theory of evolution” is itself undergoing significant evolution…

I Therefore, as a Christian… Receive Genesis 1 & 2 as utterly true in the teaching they intend to convey, Consider the divine procedure for creation to be a matter not specifically taught by the Bible, Remain open to the total freedom of God to create however He might wish,

(continued) Remain open to various scientifically generated scenarios of cosmic origins and life origins… …as possible means by which God accomplishes his goals… Refuse to allow self-described scientists to pontificate on the theological issue of “God” as if that could be determined by “science.”