I received a question on my view of Creation. I am setting out to answer it the best that I can. ENJOY!!!
I would like to stress that Genesis was not written as a scientific textbook. Rather, it is a theological narrative written to reveal the God of creation, which means it emphasizes God, not creation. As one example, Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
The Bible in general, and the opening pages of Genesis in particular, are far more concerned with the questions of who made creation, how he made creation, and why he made creation than when he did. Therefore, as Galileo said, “the Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
Among Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians, there are at least six primary interpretations of the creation account in Genesis 1–2.
View #1 – Historic Creationism (Probably where I would stand.)
In this view, Genesis 1:1 records the making of all creation by God out of nothing, or “ex nihilo.” The merism “heavens and earth” means the sky above and land below, or the totality of creation. Since the word used for “beginning” in Genesis 1:1 is reshit in Hebrew, which means an indefinite period of time, it is likely that all of creation was completed over an extended period of time (anywhere from days to billions of years). Genesis 1:2 begins the description of God preparing the uninhabitable land for the creation of mankind. The preparation of the uncultivated land and the creation of Adam and Eve occurred in six literal twenty-four-hour days, as echoed in Exodus 20:11. This view leaves open the possibility of both an old earth and six literal days of creation.
View #2 – Young Earth Creationism (this would be my 2nd option)
In this view, God created the entire universe, including Adam and Eve, in six literal twenty-four-hour days. This view is almost always accompanied with a belief in a young earth as it seeks to be faithful to the biblical text while not giving much credence to the scientific claims of such things as an old earth. A young earth is probably between 6,000-10,000 years old. Some people may argue that science stated that the earth is billions of years old. The argument to this is that maybe God made the earth mature. For example, when God created Adam, he created him mature (a man) and not a fetus. The other argument is that possibly the flood did cataclysmic damage to the earth and seasoned it beyond it's actual years.
View #3 – Gap Theory (I don't believe this, I don't think scripture supports it very well at all)
In this view, Genesis 1:1 explains a first creation that happened perhaps billions of years ago. Then, a catastrophic event, likely the fall of Satan from heaven, left the earth in the destroyed condition of Genesis 1:2. God responded to this disaster by recreating the earth again a few thousand years ago in six literal days and repopulating the earth as is recorded in Genesis 1:3–27. According to this view the earth is old from the first creation and mankind is young because of the recent creation. The problems with this view include the fact that nothing in the Bible speaks of two creations. Also, at the end of the six days of creation, God declared all that he had made “very good,” which does not correlate with the claim that the earth had been destroyed and made “very bad.”
View #4 – Literary Framework View
In this view, Genesis 1–2 is intended to be read as a figurative framework explaining creation in a topical, not sequential, order. The six days of creation listed in Genesis 1 are also to be interpreted metaphorically and not as literal twenty-four-hour days. It is true that Genesis 1 is written in poetry form. Some people argue that it should be taken as figurative rather than literal, however I do not agree with that. It would not shock me that our Creator may have decided to express his story of creation in a creative way using poetry. The Literary Framework View is outlined here:
Forming
Day 1 - light and darkness separated
Day 4 - sun, moon, stars (lights in heaven)
Day 2 - sky and waters separated
Day 5 - fish and birds
Day 3 - dry land and waters separated; plants and trees
Day 6 - animals and man
Filling
However, there are some problems with this view. Most obviously, Exodus 20:11 clearly states that the six days of creation are literal; it ties our seven-day week with one day of Sabbath to the six days of God’s work in creation and his one day of rest.
View #5 – Day-Age View
In this view, God created the universe, including Adam and Eve, in six sequential periods of time that are not literal twenty-four-hour days. The problem with this view is that the six days of creation seem to clearly be literal days. Also, as we saw above, Exodus 20:11 clearly states that the six days are literal.
View #6 – Theistic Evolution
In this view, God essentially began creation and then pulled back from working directly in creation to instead work through the process of evolution. The only exception would be God involving himself directly again in the making of human life. For the most part, this view accepts the hypothesis of evolution but seeks to insert God as the creator of matter and overseer of the evolutionary process. This view also believes that species evolved over a long period of time, which requires an old earth. The biblical problems with theistic evolution are many. First, Genesis 1 repeatedly states that creation and its species came into existence because “God said,” and not because of evolutionary process. Additionally, Genesis 1 also continually states that after God commanded creation to come into existence, “it was so”; thus, God’s commands brought about the instantaneous response of creation rather than a long evolutionary process detached from God. Second, evolution teaches that one species evolves into other species while Genesis 1 says that each species had offspring “according to its kind” (e.g., 1:21, 1:24, 1:25) and not another kind as evolution postulates. Third, the rest of Scripture portrays God as continually involved in the details of creation, including making the grass grow (Ps. 104:14; Matt. 6:30), feeding the birds (Matt. 6:26), and feeding other creatures (Ps. 104:21, 25–30). Scripture clearly does not paint God as remote or only indirectly involved in creation.
I do however believe in micro-evolution, in that species can adapt to environments. I do not believe in macro-evolution which states that one species can evolve into another species. That thought originally came from Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Please look again at the full title of that book. The underlining argument was that whites had out-evolved blacks and were superior. Darwin's book was a book that was out to prove favored races. I believe that we all descend from Adam and that all races are equal. In the further study of this theory, it has been proved that with the complexity of DNA and the study of the "single simple cell" (which is not simple at all), this theory of macro-evolution has never been factually proven. Also, fossil records do not have any evidence of this in its findings.
Sooooooooooooo. I hope this gives some thought on what I believe. I must say that I am no expert in this at all. My beliefs come from a basic scientific study of this topic and my view on scripture. I am interested to know other peoples thoughts.
I would like to stress that Genesis was not written as a scientific textbook. Rather, it is a theological narrative written to reveal the God of creation, which means it emphasizes God, not creation. As one example, Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
The Bible in general, and the opening pages of Genesis in particular, are far more concerned with the questions of who made creation, how he made creation, and why he made creation than when he did. Therefore, as Galileo said, “the Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
Among Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians, there are at least six primary interpretations of the creation account in Genesis 1–2.
View #1 – Historic Creationism (Probably where I would stand.)
In this view, Genesis 1:1 records the making of all creation by God out of nothing, or “ex nihilo.” The merism “heavens and earth” means the sky above and land below, or the totality of creation. Since the word used for “beginning” in Genesis 1:1 is reshit in Hebrew, which means an indefinite period of time, it is likely that all of creation was completed over an extended period of time (anywhere from days to billions of years). Genesis 1:2 begins the description of God preparing the uninhabitable land for the creation of mankind. The preparation of the uncultivated land and the creation of Adam and Eve occurred in six literal twenty-four-hour days, as echoed in Exodus 20:11. This view leaves open the possibility of both an old earth and six literal days of creation.
View #2 – Young Earth Creationism (this would be my 2nd option)
In this view, God created the entire universe, including Adam and Eve, in six literal twenty-four-hour days. This view is almost always accompanied with a belief in a young earth as it seeks to be faithful to the biblical text while not giving much credence to the scientific claims of such things as an old earth. A young earth is probably between 6,000-10,000 years old. Some people may argue that science stated that the earth is billions of years old. The argument to this is that maybe God made the earth mature. For example, when God created Adam, he created him mature (a man) and not a fetus. The other argument is that possibly the flood did cataclysmic damage to the earth and seasoned it beyond it's actual years.
View #3 – Gap Theory (I don't believe this, I don't think scripture supports it very well at all)
In this view, Genesis 1:1 explains a first creation that happened perhaps billions of years ago. Then, a catastrophic event, likely the fall of Satan from heaven, left the earth in the destroyed condition of Genesis 1:2. God responded to this disaster by recreating the earth again a few thousand years ago in six literal days and repopulating the earth as is recorded in Genesis 1:3–27. According to this view the earth is old from the first creation and mankind is young because of the recent creation. The problems with this view include the fact that nothing in the Bible speaks of two creations. Also, at the end of the six days of creation, God declared all that he had made “very good,” which does not correlate with the claim that the earth had been destroyed and made “very bad.”
View #4 – Literary Framework View
In this view, Genesis 1–2 is intended to be read as a figurative framework explaining creation in a topical, not sequential, order. The six days of creation listed in Genesis 1 are also to be interpreted metaphorically and not as literal twenty-four-hour days. It is true that Genesis 1 is written in poetry form. Some people argue that it should be taken as figurative rather than literal, however I do not agree with that. It would not shock me that our Creator may have decided to express his story of creation in a creative way using poetry. The Literary Framework View is outlined here:
Forming
Day 1 - light and darkness separated
Day 4 - sun, moon, stars (lights in heaven)
Day 2 - sky and waters separated
Day 5 - fish and birds
Day 3 - dry land and waters separated; plants and trees
Day 6 - animals and man
Filling
However, there are some problems with this view. Most obviously, Exodus 20:11 clearly states that the six days of creation are literal; it ties our seven-day week with one day of Sabbath to the six days of God’s work in creation and his one day of rest.
View #5 – Day-Age View
In this view, God created the universe, including Adam and Eve, in six sequential periods of time that are not literal twenty-four-hour days. The problem with this view is that the six days of creation seem to clearly be literal days. Also, as we saw above, Exodus 20:11 clearly states that the six days are literal.
View #6 – Theistic Evolution
In this view, God essentially began creation and then pulled back from working directly in creation to instead work through the process of evolution. The only exception would be God involving himself directly again in the making of human life. For the most part, this view accepts the hypothesis of evolution but seeks to insert God as the creator of matter and overseer of the evolutionary process. This view also believes that species evolved over a long period of time, which requires an old earth. The biblical problems with theistic evolution are many. First, Genesis 1 repeatedly states that creation and its species came into existence because “God said,” and not because of evolutionary process. Additionally, Genesis 1 also continually states that after God commanded creation to come into existence, “it was so”; thus, God’s commands brought about the instantaneous response of creation rather than a long evolutionary process detached from God. Second, evolution teaches that one species evolves into other species while Genesis 1 says that each species had offspring “according to its kind” (e.g., 1:21, 1:24, 1:25) and not another kind as evolution postulates. Third, the rest of Scripture portrays God as continually involved in the details of creation, including making the grass grow (Ps. 104:14; Matt. 6:30), feeding the birds (Matt. 6:26), and feeding other creatures (Ps. 104:21, 25–30). Scripture clearly does not paint God as remote or only indirectly involved in creation.
I do however believe in micro-evolution, in that species can adapt to environments. I do not believe in macro-evolution which states that one species can evolve into another species. That thought originally came from Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Please look again at the full title of that book. The underlining argument was that whites had out-evolved blacks and were superior. Darwin's book was a book that was out to prove favored races. I believe that we all descend from Adam and that all races are equal. In the further study of this theory, it has been proved that with the complexity of DNA and the study of the "single simple cell" (which is not simple at all), this theory of macro-evolution has never been factually proven. Also, fossil records do not have any evidence of this in its findings.
Sooooooooooooo. I hope this gives some thought on what I believe. I must say that I am no expert in this at all. My beliefs come from a basic scientific study of this topic and my view on scripture. I am interested to know other peoples thoughts.
2 comments:
hoo boy, do I have a lot to say about this post. I will submit a complete response as soon as I am able, as there is a lot of pseudo-science that needs to be cleared up. In advance of my more formal response though, I had to make one point regarding Darwin and "On the Origin of Species"
I do however believe in micro-evolution, in that species can adapt to environments. I do not believe in macro-evolution which states that one species can evolve into another species. That thought originally came from Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Please look again at the full title of that book. The underlining argument was that whites had out-evolved blacks and were superior. Darwin's book was a book that was out to prove favored races. I believe that we all descend from Adam and that all races are equal.
I am not sure if you have read "On the Origin of Species", but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with proving which human race is superior to the other. This is just completely factually incorrect, and if you read this somewhere, I recommend that you completely disregard anything else that the author has written. The word "race" in the subtitle is referring to what modern botanists and zoologists refer to as either breeds or varieties. An Orchid that has a slightly different structure than another would have been referred to as a different race of Orchids in Darwin's time. In the 160 years since the publishing of his book, the word "race" has taken on new context in society to most commonly refer to the ethic differences between human beings. This was not the fact in Darwin’s time, and anyone claiming that “On the Origin of Species” is a racist book is either ignorant or being intentionally polemic.
As I said, I have a more thorough response coming, I just didn’t want to let that point sit out there uncontested.
I freakin love you Bri,
I knew you would respond to this post. Part of the reason why I was so excited to write it was knowing you'd have something to say.
:) About Darwin, I may have misread some information or read some mis-informed information. I will research that as well.
I look forward to your response.
hoo boy, mc
oh yeah...I think I have a way to prove to you that God is personal. It may cost you though. Let me know if your up for the challange.
Post a Comment