Joyful Moments in Christ

Does Genesis 1 Describe a Process or an Endpoint?

As I continue my series on Science and the Bible, I want to raise a question about the heart of Genesis 1: Is Genesis 1 describing the scientific process of creation, or does it gloss over the process and focus on the endpoint—a male and female being made in the image of God? Depending on the answer, the first will demand a literal view of Genesis 1, while the second could indicate a literary view.

Christians who believe in evolution and an old earth almost always take the view that there has to be some literary elements in Genesis 1, where Christians who deny evolution is possible and believe in a young earth almost always believe that Genesis 1 must be literal. Since I believe in evolution and an old earth, I also believe in a literary interpretation of Genesis 1. Of course, it is technically possible that God is trying to trick us by allowing scientists to discover faulty evidence, but, to me, this does not seem in line with God’s character and, further, would make me question whether or not I really want to be a Christian.

In this blog post, I will counter the Answers in Genesis (AiG) article titled “Six Literal Days.” If you read the full AiG article, you will see that they argue for a young earth by choosing the standpoint that Genesis 1 is a description of the process of creation, and therefore must be literal.

If you want to further understand my views regarding creation, consider reading at the following blog posts:

• A summary of my views regarding creation:
  Science and the Bible: An Introduction to the Creation Story
• The implications of believing that Adam and Eve were made in the image of God:
  Science and the Bible: Made in the Image of God
• An exploration of possible literary aspects of Genesis 1:
  Science and the Bible: Exploring Literary Devices in Genesis
• A fun musing about how dinosaurs might fit into creation:
  Science and the Bible: Navigating the Dinosaur Dilemma

Genesis 1 is Written for Non-Scientific People

The AiG article that I am refuting starts with Deuteronomy 6:1-7, which mandates that parents teach their children about the word of God.

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 (ESV)

It is believed that Moses wrote the book of Genesis. The claim in the AiG article is that since Moses was writing this book for former slaves with little education, that the language had to be very simple and direct. I agree with this! A one page story of creation in a pleasing and easy to memorize format is perfect for non-scientific people! The language is simple, straight-forward, pleasant to the ear, and easy to memorize.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Genesis 1:1-5 (ESV)

Is Genesis 1 Literal or Literary?

What I disagree with is that the language in Genesis 1 has to be literal just because it uses words that imply “is” or words like “said.” If I told you, “he is compassion,” does that mean that this person is compassion incarnate? No! It is a metaphor for a concept. It is entirely possible that Genesis 1 is a huge set of metaphors that embody some really important concepts. Read my article on literary devices to learn more.

AiG claims that since the word “day” is not used metaphorically anywhere else in the Bible, it therefore must be interpreted literally in Genesis 1. Why does this have to be the case? Doesn’t this restriction put an artificial limit on God’s linguistic skills? Do we really want to put God in a box that agrees with our particular viewpoint?

Let’s look at a similar example that uses precedent as a negation of possibility: Do we really want to claim that just because no one before or after Jesus has ever been raised from death to permanent life, that it is not possible that Jesus could have been raised from death to life? This type of precedent argument is a very dangerous argument, and in my opinion, should not be used!

It is my belief that the transition point from metaphorical language to historical language is in Genesis 2:4, where a retelling of the creation story begins. Why would God start the story over and tell it in a slightly different order than Genesis 1? Is this a contradiction?

As described in Tim Keller’s article titled “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople,” the logical answer is that one is a literary account and the other is a historical account. If we say that Genesis 2 is the literary account, then we have to dismiss the entire rest of the book of Genesis as literary, and not historically accurate. The idea that Genesis 2 is literary makes much less sense than choosing Genesis 1 as the literary version.

If we look at Genesis 2:5-7, this could easily be a literal 3 verse description of the process of creation. There are no time markers, there is no vegetation, only dust.

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Genesis 2:5-7 (ESV)

Given that scientists believe that the entire evolutionary process started with a single grain of dust (the big bang theory), is it possible that these verses describe the process of creation, starting with just after the big bang theory was implemented? Once God was happy with the homo sapiens that he created—starting from a single grain of dust and guiding the evolutionary process—is it possible that he chose one of these homo sapiens—Adam—and gave him the breath of life, finally finishing the creation of a being made in the image of God?

Do you see how my interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 fits both modern scientific research and leaves no biblical contradiction? If you hold the AiG view, then contradictions between science and the Bible pop up again and again! It would be very difficult for me to be a Christian if I thought AiG’s view was correct.

The Ten Commandments

The next argument in the AiG article has to do with the 10 commandments. In Exodus 20:8-11, Moses is given the Ten Commandments.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 20:8-11 (ESV)

In Exodus 20:11 (ESV), it says, “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day…” AiG’s claim is that since this commandment repeats the language of Genesis 1, that the six days of creation must be literal. I maintain that while this could technically be true, it doesn’t have to be. Just as Jesus went after the Pharisees for listening to the letter of the law and not the heart of the law, the same might be true of people who refuse to consider that Genesis 1 might be literary, and not literal.

If we believe that verses 8-11 are literal, the best way to show the folly in this is to start with Exodus 20:9-10 (ESV). “Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work…” If we take this 100% literally, as the Pharisees did, then Jesus should not have been healing on the Sabbath in Matthew 12:9-13. Was Jesus wrong for not taking a literal view of this verse? Did he really fulfill the law for us if he didn’t fulfill this particular commandment? Jesus didn’t think that what he did was wrong. If we insist on a completely literal view of these verses in Exodus, it turns Jesus into a liar. However, when we look at the heart of these verses, we quickly see that Jesus was right.

Now let’s look at Mark 10:6 (ESV). “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.” While this AiG article does not use this verse in this particular article, they do use it in other articles to support the idea that Jesus believed in a literal six days of creation. The common claim is that since men and women were created “in the beginning” that evolution is not possible or it would make Jesus a liar.

However, if we want to argue semantics trying to prove that this verse supports the process of creation, we could end up calling him a liar from this exact line of reasoning. If we consider the idea that day one is “the beginning” and Adam and Eve were not created until day six, were they really created in the beginning? Alternatively, we could argue that on day six, since Adam was made first, Jesus really should have said, “created Adam from the beginning made him male. Then he created Eve.” My opinion is that it is more likely that this particular use of “in the beginning” simply is short for the endpoint of creation, or “in the beginning of the beings created in the image of God.”

Do you see how this analysis of Exodus 20:9-10 and Mark 10:6 show that legalism in the semantics of a short phrase that describes a complex issue is problematic? The concept of creation is an incredibly difficult one, and if we look at Moses’ or Jesus’ time, we are going to see that the deeper concepts of the process of creation would have been very difficult to express in just a few words.

It is my theory that both Moses (who simply wrote words that were actually from God) and Jesus were simply using the “big ideas” of creation from Genesis 1, and not necessarily making a statement about the process of creation. The pharisees were tripped up by a legalistic view of semantics, and it is my belief that young earth creationists are also being tripped up by it. Just as Jesus tried to explain the heart of the law, it is my goal to try to understand the heart of Genesis 1.

Conclusions

The biggest objection I have to this AiG article is their concluding question, “Will you trust His Word over the arrogant claims of sinful men?” This type of language is not needed. Is it really necessary to bash other Christians who need to believe that God is not trying to trick us with false scientific evidence? Why can’t we live and let live? I would never call someone who believes in a young earth sinful for that particular belief. I might believe that they are mistaken, but I would never call it sin. The language found in the Answers in Genesis article is what really needs to stop!

It is my hope that any Christian who reads my article will consider the claims in my article and see that even if they come away still disagreeing with me, it does not make either of us sinful. Is it sinful when we disagree about the length of a church service, the type of music we play, how often we should serve communion, whether we should serve leavened or unleavened bread during communion, or even whether we should sprinkle or dunk for baptism? Why is this topic any different? A theological theory is simply a theory, and not necessarily a fact.

Some theories are stronger than others, and it is my opinion that there are a lot of holes in the idea that the world was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago. If there are reasonable explanations that are compatible with modern science, we need to stop accusing other believers of being sinful and start conversing respectfully and stop driving people from the church over our weak theories. Matthew 12:25 (ESV) says, “Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.’” Is speculation on the process of creation really an issue that we want to divide over? Let’s replace the anger and division with peace and joy!

More Reading: Read Romans 14 and watch for an upcoming post about the need to stop passing judgement about opinions!

Reflection Questions

1. After reading this blog post, what is your initial perspective on whether Genesis 1 describes the process of creation or the endpoint? Do you lean towards a literal or literary view, and why?
2. Reflect on the author’s assertion that modern scientific research supports a literary interpretation of Genesis 1. Do you find this alignment convincing? Why or why not?
3. The author suggests that Genesis 2:4 marks the transition to a historical account, while Genesis 2:5-7 may be a brief summary of the creation process. What are your thoughts on this interpretation? Does it resonate with your understanding of these verses?
4. This blog post counters arguments presented by Answers in Genesis. After reading both perspectives, which arguments do you find more compelling, and why? Are there specific points from either side that you would like to explore further?
5. Reflect on the discussion regarding the use of literal or metaphorical language in Genesis 1. Do you agree with the author’s assertion that words like “said” or “is” don’t necessarily mandate a literal interpretation? Why or why not?
6. Consider the interpretation of Exodus 20:8-11 in relation to the literal six days of creation. Do you think this commandment necessitates a literal interpretation of Genesis 1? Why or why not?
7. This blog post discusses the potential pitfalls of semantic legalism, particularly in interpreting biblical passages. How do you view the role of semantics in biblical interpretation? Do you think it can sometimes lead to misunderstandings?
8. The author expresses concern about the use of inflammatory language, particularly in the concluding question from Answers in Genesis. How do you feel about the tone used in discussions about differing interpretations within the Christian community?
9. Reflect on the author’s plea for tolerance and acceptance of differing beliefs regarding creation within the church. How do you approach differences in this particular theological perspective? Is there room for diverse interpretations within your faith community?
10. After reading this blog post and reflecting on the questions posed, consider the overall impact of differing interpretations on individuals both within and without the Christian community. How might our discussions on topics like the creation story affect the ability for non-Christians to become believers?

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this post and wish to receive more Christian content, feel free to subscribe to my newsletters!

Related Resources

Visit the Joyful Moments in Christ homepage for all posts, or scroll through other blog posts related to science and the Bible:

English Standard Version (ESV): Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are taken from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The ESV text may not be quoted in any publication made available to the public by a Creative Commons license. The ESV may not be translated in whole or in part into any other language.