The primary purpose of this post is not to give all the arguments for the questions at hand, but a simple overview of what I believe are the starting points and main takeaways. This is a three-part series where I will answer five questions at a time. Part 2 can be found here, and Part 3 here. Immediately below is a list of the questions that I will answer in case you want to skip ahead.
15 Questions
1. Does Genesis 1 require a literal seven-day interpretation?
2. What are the different theories regarding Genesis 1?
3. How does Genesis 1-2 compare to other ancient creation accounts?
4. How should we view biblical genealogies?
5. Is it biblically tenable to hold to a local flood theory?
6. How credible is the science behind Young Earth Creationism?
7. Is the Appearance of Age argument credible?
8. Are Young Earth Creationists burying their heads in the sand?
9. How do Old Earth Creationists and Evolutionary Creationists understand animal death prior to the Fall?
10. Doesn’t Romans 5:12 explicitly state that death entered the world after Adam sinned?
11. What are the essentials that a Christian must hold to relating to creation?
12. Must Evolutionary Creationists deny biblical Inerrancy?
13. Intelligent Design: What is it and is it science?
14. How does Darwinism function as an ideology?
15. Is it intellectual suicide to deny the theory of evolution?
[For reference, remember the terms Young Earth Creationists (YEC), Old Earth Creationists (OEC) and Evolutionary Creationists (EC).]
1. Does Genesis 1 Require a Literal Seven-Day Interpretation?
If you are anything like me, you might have grown up thinking that the only people who held to a non-literal seven-day interpretation of Genesis were heathens, heretics, and other hell-bound folks. Yet, as I have demonstrated when providing a history of the age of the earth controversy, that simply is not the case.
Much of the debate revolves around the Hebrew word Yom. It is clear that Yom does not have to refer to a 24-hour period. It can refer to shorter periods of time (Gen. 1:5, 14-16) or longer periods (Gen. 2:7, Gen. 29:14, Judges 14:4). However, the majority of scholars believe that the author of Genesis 1 was writing the word Yom in such a way that the word itself should be understood to be written as a literal single day. So, when the writer (or God directly in Exodus 20:11) says ‘one day’, he is saying ‘one day’.1
So that ends the debate, right? Nope. As Bruce Waltke said, “To be sure the six days in the Genesis creation account are our 24-hour days, but they are metaphorical representations of a reality beyond human comprehension and imitation.”2
When interpreting Scripture (or anything for that matter), we have to be mindful of the importance of knowing when to understand something literally and when we should take it figuratively. Simply going with the most literal interpretation is no way to honor the text, and certainly it will lead away from orthodoxy if applied consistently.
In John 11, Jesus (the Eternal Word), literally says that Lazarus has fallen asleep. Only after the disciples mistakenly interpreted Him literally (John 11:13) did He explain that He was not to be taken literally. He meant actual death despite His choice of words. Here (and many other places) we have the Son of God using a word literally, and yet, his meaning is nonliteral. The truthfulness of a statement is not tied to its literalism. Of course, this is not a one-to-one example for approaching Genesis 1, but is said here to demonstrate that we need to be careful about assuming we have a true understanding, simply because we have a literal understanding.
A good Biblical interpreter seeks to understand what should be taken literally and what need not (or should not) be taken literally. Another instance is the body parts ascribed to God the Father throughout Scripture or the physical description of Jesus in Revelation 1. At the same time, a wise interpreter also understands that non-literal interpretations can easily become dangerous. The Apostle John does not mess around with those who do not believe that Jesus literally came in the flesh. He declares they are under the spirit of the antichrist (I John 4:3). We need wisdom to determine when and where to be dogmatic with literal interpretations, and where to allow for non-literal interpretations. For a variety of reasons, Genesis 1 is an area where both literal and nonliteral meanings should be explored.
2. What are the Different Theories Regarding Genesis 1?
There are many different theories relating to the interpretation of Genesis 1. What follows is a very basic description of the basic thesis of each major theory.
The most common theory at the popular level is 24-Hour Theory, which interprets the days as literal 24-hour periods. Therefore, this view advocates that the universe and earth were created within seven, literal 24-hour days.
Gap Theory sees a period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. During this gap, Satan rebelled and part of God’s judgment fell upon the earth, which is described in the conditions of Genesis 1:2.
Another more common theory is Day-Age Theory. This theory, as taken by the creation organization Reasons to Believe, unites the correlation of the scientific geological record with Genesis 1. It sees each day as describing a long period of time between God’s creative acts.
Framework Theory is typically held by those who view Genesis 1 as poetic and not chronological. This approach seeks to focus strictly on the theological message and takes a very metaphorical approach in interpreting. Tim Keller seems to hold a theory similar to this as he describes Genesis 1 as the “Song of Creation.”3 Which, of course, is a reference to Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia.
Historical Creationism Theory holds that Genesis 1:1 refers to a duration of time that essentially describes the “time before time” in which God created the universe. Then, what follows from Genesis 1:2, is the account of God’s second great act of creation that now involves man.4
A theory that uses parallels from other Near Eastern accounts is the Temple Inauguration Theory. This theory sees Genesis 1 as describing God creating His cosmic temple, which would have been understood by those in the Ancient Near East.5
It should be noted that there are many theories within each of these theories and some scholars take mediating positions between more than one theory. Nor is the above list exhaustive.
3. How Does Genesis Compare to Other Ancient Creation Accounts?
It sometimes comes as a surprise to Christians that there are other creation accounts found in the Ancient Near East. The first of these came to light with the discovery of the Ashurbanipal Library in ancient Nineveh in 1853.6 Since then, accounts from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia have also been found.
While there are similarities between the accounts, it is the distinctions that clearly stand out. In many of these accounts, gods are seen as created or formed by a power outside of themselves. There is chaos among both gods and nature. There is a very low view of human dignity displayed in them.
As C. John Collins writes:
The biblical account shows both similarities with, and differences from, the Mesopotamian tales… the similarities show that Genesis is discussing the same events, while the differences show the different worldviews behind the accounts… Genesis is offering the true story of mankind’s past. Even if the Mesopotamian tradition got the broad structure ‘right,’ Genesis corrects many of the details; but even more, it provides the true interpretation of these events.7
4. How Should We View Biblical Genealogies?
The more time that I’ve spent learning how to interpret the Bible, or any literature for that matter, the more I’ve learned that I cannot force my rules onto the original writer. We must remember that the things written must have been understandable to the original audience, within their literary and linguistic context. I have especially learned this with Biblical genealogies. Before studying them, I would always come to them with a rule that they must be strictly chronological, yet one thing that seems clear when analyzing the genealogies is that their primary purpose is not that.
In the Old Testament, there are 25 different genealogies, which is unique to the nation of Israel when compared to other Near Eastern cultures. Although present, surrounding cultures did not show nearly as much of an interest in genealogies. There are discontinuities and other features within the genealogies that serve literary purposes other than a chronological nature. This includes highlighting key figures, emphasizing the number seven, and linking different historical figures.
A couple examples are: Eber is given special treatment in Genesis 10 and is clearly mentioned out of chronological order, Joseph is placed seventh in Genesis 35:23-26 which is not chronological, and Exodus 6 gives a truncated genealogy compared to the similar genealogy found in I Chronicles 7.
The New Testament writers also wrote genealogies to highlight literary and theological points. Their purpose was not to provide a seamless chronological timeline, but rather to demonstrate a connected line of decent. In Matthew 1:18, Matthew omits three generations between Joram and Uzziah. For those committed to inerrancy, we must recognize that these gaps are intentional.
It seems clear that while genealogies were used to trace ancestry, using them to clearly define the age of humanity is unwarranted. B.B. Warfield is well known for having been against those who would use a genealogy to try to compile a complete history of the human race. One of his Princeton forerunners, Dr. William Henry Green, was also highly critical of such tactics used by theologians like James Ussher.8
Furthermore, if one holds that there are no gaps within Genesis’s genealogies they must believe that Shem outlived Abraham! Though possible, the rest of the text gives no indication whatsoever that this was the case. Even more, it could be argued that the text implies that this was not the case. When dealing with biblical genealogies, we should focus on the literary intent and less on trying to develop a complete chronological timeline of humanity.9
5. Is it Biblically Tenable to Hold to a Local Flood Theory?
One interesting fact that nearly every Christian can agree on regarding the flood is that God left an imprint of its memory on humanity as they spread throughout the earth. A surprising variety and number of cultures have ancient flood stories. In total, there are 68 distinct ancient flood accounts.
The surface-level reading of the Biblical flood account with no understanding of the historical context would cause one to believe in a global flood. Whereas a face value (and scrutinizing) look at the geological evidence would have one believe that there has not been a global flood. The science behind defending a global flood from the geological evidence, used by organizations like the Answers in Genesis, tends to be dubious at best. The geological evidence does not support a global flood.10 In their book 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker conclude that those who advocate for a young earth form of geology “[have] an almost pathological inability to see the truth. These blind spots render them unable to see what should be obvious.”11
The best (and possibly the only honest) defense of a global flood when looking at geological evidence is to claim an absolute miracle. This is not a problem for those who believe in miracles like all Christians must, but the geological evidence should not be used to defend a global flood as is commonly done. Many of the early geologists who came across the evidence did not want to abandon the idea of a global flood as they themselves were Christians who believed in it, but they felt compelled to do so due to the evidence at hand. YEC should not appeal to geological evidence but Scripture alone if they desire to hold to a global flood theory. YEC who do that should not be chided if they are unconvinced that the Bible allows for another interpretation. The Bible is the final authority for believers, respect those who respect that.
Yet that still leaves the question: Is it biblically tenable to hold to a local flood theory as most OEC and EC do? ‘Local flood’ is a bit of a deceiving term as it still means a massive supernatural flood that wiped out all (or all civilized) human life. Although this does not match the surface-level reading of the flood story for us moderns, most defenders of a global flood theory acknowledge the possibility of an alternate interpretation. In many other places in the Bible, very comprehensive and seemingly universal language is used in more obviously qualified ways (Gen. 41:56-57, Deut. 2:25, I Kings 4:43, 10:24, II Chron. 36:23, Dan. 2:38, 4:22, 5:19, Luke 2:1).12 Such examples leave the possibility that the flood account is also described in such a way. We have to remember that our literalism will almost always be somewhat selective. For instance, in Genesis 8:7 and 8:14, it is said that the earth was “completely dry” after the flood, but no one holds to a strictly literal interpretation that would require a universal post-diluvian desert.13
There are strong defenses that can be in favor of a local flood. Christian apologist Gavin Ortlund has two excellent videos that defend a local flood. They are: ‘Was Noah’s Flood Local?‘ and ‘Is My Local Flood View Heresy?‘ I highly recommend both videos. C. John Collins’s Reading Genesis Well also provides a strong written defense of the view.
For those looking into it, we must remember the lessons from the Copernicus Conflict when addressing science and faith issues. It should again be noted that both local flood and global flood defenders agree on the historicity of Noah’s flood, that it was a supernatural act of God’s judgment against the world for humanity’s rebellion, that it functioned as a foreshadowing of God’s judgment to come, and that is an example of His grace to those who believe and take refugee in His Son.12
Notes
- Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2014), 164
- Quoted in: Ibid.
- Tim Keller, “Evolution and Science,” Gospel in Life, September 10, 2001, https://gospelinlife.com/downloads/defeaters-4-evolution-and-science-4609/
- Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 147-155
- Ibid.137-145
- Ibid. 57
- C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006), 240-41, 243
- Joe Carter, “Debatable: Genesis, Genealogies, and the Age of the Earth,” The Gospel Coalition, March 9, 2014, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/debatable-genesis-genealogies-and-the-age-of-the-earth/
- Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 169-176
- Ibid. 285-310
- Ibid. 296
- Ibid. 291
- Quoted in: Ibid. 292
- Ibid. 292, 310
Photo by Kayvan Mazhar on Unsplash
Further Reading
Moore Thinking 