The Structure of Genesis 1

Last week I started writing about the reasons why I think the earth is not young, but actually quite old, and why I think this is not only compatible with the Bible, but also takes it very seriously. Today I want to start looking at the structure of Genesis 1 and what it is actually saying. Much has been written on this subject already so I won't always repeat everything. Today I don't have time to make a chart so I found one instead. It gives a decent picture of something often pointed out, which is the alignment of days 1-3 with days 4-6. Days one and four describe light/darkness vs sun, moon and stars. Days two and five describe sky/water vs birds of the air and fish of the sea. Days three and six describe the appearance of land and it producing vegetation vs the land producing living beings and the creation of humans.

Preparation and population. Forming and filling. Or, as John Walton says, "functions and functionaries." Whatever you call it the pattern is there. I do not see how we must believe in a six successive 24 hour day creation account when this obvious parallelism is present in the text screaming to be noticed. With this parallelism in place it becomes much easier to see that there is a pattern of rhyme and a greater story being told that doesn't require us to think the author meant for light to exist without a source or plants to live without the sun. What I am saying is that a wooden reading of a six 24hr day creation is not the only or the best or reading of the text based on indicators within the text itself..This is not an imposition of modern science or some fanciful theory.  It is an attempt to read the text as it is.

 The following Chart was take from here.

Problem	Preparation	Population
Verse 2	Days 1-3	Days 4-6
darkness	day 1a - creation of light (day) day 1b - separation from darkness (night)	day 4a - creation of sun day 4b - creation of moon and stars
watery abyss	day 2a - creation of firmament (sky) day 2b - separation of waters above from waters below	day 5a - creation of birds days 5b - creation of fish
formless earth	day 3a - separation of earth from sea day 3b - creation of vegetation	day 6a - creation of land animals day 6b - creation of humanity
without form and void	tohu (formlessness) is formed	bohu (the void) is filled

 Here is another chart comparing the Genesis account to one of several Egyptian creation stories. The reasons for noting the similarities with this specific account will be discussed later this week.

Tim Keller "Evolution, Creation, and Christian Lay-people"

Here is part of an article by Tim Keller written for BioLogos:

In my estimation what current science tells us about evolution presents four main difficulties for
orthodox Protestants. The first is in the area of Biblical authority. To account for evolution we must see at
least Genesis 1 as non-literal. The questions come along these lines: what does that mean for the idea that
the Bible has final authority? If we refuse to take one part of the Bible literally, why take any parts of it
literally? Aren’t we really allowing science to sit in judgment on our understanding of the Bible rather than
vica versa?
The second difficulty is the confusion of biology and philosophy. Many of the strongest proponents
for evolution as a biological process (such as Dawkins) also see it as a ‘Grand Theory of Everything.’ They
look to natural selection to explain not only all human behavior but even to give the only answers to the
great philosophical questions, such as why we exist, what life is about, and why human nature is what it is.
Doesn’t belief in the one idea—that life is the product of evolution—entail the adoption of this whole ‘world
-view’?
The third difficulty is the historicity of Adam and Eve. One way to reconcile what current science says
about evolution is to propose that the account of Adam and Eve is symbolic, not literal, but what does this
do to the New Testament teaching of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 that our sinfulness comes from our
relationship with Adam? If we don’t believe in an historical fall, how did we become what the Bible says we
are—sinful and condemned?
The fourth difficulty is the problem of violence and evil. One of the greatest barriers to belief in God
is the problem of suffering and evil in the world. Why, people ask, did God create a world in which violence,
pain, and death are endemic? The answer of traditional theology is—he didn’t. He created a good world but
also gave human beings free will, and through their disobedience and ‘Fall’, death and suffering came into
the world. The process of evolution, however, understands violence, predation, and death to be the very
engine of how life develops. If God brings about life through evolution, how do we reconcile that with the
idea of a good God? The problem of evil seems to be worse for the believer in theistic evolution.

Is creation out of nothing a doctrine 'ex nihilo'?

 

Today I will continue to cover the reasons why I reject Young Earth Creationism and believe the earth to be quite old. If you're looking for biblical evidence, reasons, and compatibility you'll find some here. I covered some scientific evidence yesterday including radiometric dating and ice layers.

This is going to have to be a series of posts because there is a lot to cover even off the top of my head so today I will start with the lack of texts that God created the universe out of nothing. I do believe God made the universe out of nothing, but when I examine the Bible there is actually no text that clearly and explicitly states creation 'Ex Nihilo', that is, 'out of nothing'. And before we get too far into this point it is worth saying that the claims of some from the scientific community that the universe indeed did come out of nothing isn't the same thing. For them, 'Nothing' is actually 'Something' such as a quantum vacuum. The move has been deeply criticized for highjacking a term used in philosophy and theology and creating more confusion than light.

Creation 'ex nihilo' is essentially a theological conclusion based upon biblical statements about the nature of God in relation to creation. There are various views on this front: Pantheism, Panentheism, and Theism.

This picture illustrates the differences fairly well. In the middle we see that the universe simply is God, which is pantheism. To the right, we see that the universe is God, but God is still beyond it, or larger than it, or not exhausted by it, which is panentheism. To the left is Theism, which shows that God is completely 'other than' the universe. I think this image does lean more toward a deism, however, because it looks like God is spatially transcendent or beyond the universe with no interaction as though there is a great distance. The Jewish and Christian view of God and creation is one where God is not the universe in any sense, yet sustains it and is immanent, or near, while still transcendent beyond it. The Bible is also clear that God is the only thing or being that is existent from eternity. This is classic theology and because of this view of God and creation it is said that because the universe is in no sense God it must have come into being out of nothing and that such an act was performed by God as the cause.

'But what about Genesis 1?' you ask. This is what it says:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (Gen 1:1-2 NIV)

Before the first day where God said let there be light we have an earth without form and deep waters. This is not creation out of nothing. The rest of this creation narrative describes God bringing order out of the chaos of the primordial waters and darkness. If you read through you will notice that there simply is not point in which God creates water. He separates it with a solid dome so that some is held back in the sky for rainfall. He makes dry land appear by gathering the waters together (the land was apparently also already there and was not 'created out of nothing' but made to appear by moving the water). The water was already there and God is controlling it; bringing order. There are similar problems with the other creation texts in the Bible. They simply do not make overt proclamation about the first moment of something from nothing.

Millard J Erickson agrees with my assessment that the Bible does not explicitly teach this doctrine saying, "Although the language in the Old Testament is not conclusive, the idea of ex nihilo creation can be found in a number of New Testament passages where the aim is not primarily to make a statement about the nature of creation. In particular, there are numerous references to the beginning of the world or the beginning of creation." (Introducting Christian Doctrine 2nd ed. 2001, pg 131). The phrases in the New Testament are pretty much variations of "from the beginning of the world..." or "since the creation of the world..." Such instances are incidental and not actually teaching creation ex nihilo, yet the implication of these types of statements make it reasonable to hold to the doctrine by inference.

This may seem like a major tangent and have nothing to do with whether or not the earth is young, but stay with me. Even conservative theologians agree that there are only implications from texts and that many of the clearer sounding texts aren't teaching about creation. This means that the creation texts themselves, and particularly the oldest ones, are not giving an account of the moment where something came out of nothing. It is possible to believe that these texts are describing this event, but there is nothing in the texts themselves that requires us to interpret the texts in this way. That means that the Bible's account of creation cannot be giving a clear indication of the age of the universe.

Early church views on Creation in Genesis

I've said several times this week that there are many interpretations Genesis 1 so this post will direct you to quotes of theologians through the last 2,000 years. I also claimed that Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis think they are the only legitimate interpretation and are the ones aligned with historic Christianity. Here is the heading from their article titled, "Other 'Interpretations' of Genesis"

The purpose of this section is to define some of the interpretive schemes that have arisen since the idea of vast ages became popular in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Please bear in mind that old-earth theologies were essentially non-existent prior to 1800. This fact alone provides strong evidence that these views are not derived from the Bible. Instead, they are an attempt to accommodate the long ages promoted by uniformitarian science. 

 From the outset, the title questions other approaches as actual interpretations. Then it describes them as 'schemes', claims they arose in the 18th and 19th centuries yet were only 'virtually' non-existent before 1800. Is that a fact? Are these views derived from the Bible? Or are they, as AIG claims, an attempt to accommodate modern science?

No. From the early church fathers onward, there has been a diversity of interpretations. In fact, the doctrine of Creation was not a priority for the early Christians. They were a little busy being slaughtered, fed to lions, and used as nightlights for the emperor. When they had time to talk there were more important issues such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the person of Jesus.

The key, once again, is that the views were diverse as pointed out with multiple quotes by this blogger. While it is true that many early Christians did think the earth was young, most of those held that the earth was 6,000 years old then. That would make the earth at least 8,000 years old today. Modern Young Earth Creationists base their belief of a 6,000 year old earth on the chronology of James Ussher and Dr. John Lightfoot.who wrote in the 17th century, not the early church as often asserted.

For another perspective on the early church's views, here is a 5 part blog post from 'Reasons to Believe'. They use what they call a 'Creation Model' approach to integrating science and the Christian faith.

John Walton - Origins Today - Genesis Through Ancient Eyes

As promised, here is the link to John Walton's discussion on reading Genesis through Ancient Near Eastern eyes:

Creation in Genesis and the Ancient Near East

This is an artistic depiction by Jonathan Walton of what the Ancient Near Eastern texts of the Bible, including Genesis 1 and others, actually describe. Looks a little different from the earth, doesn't it? Yet this is what the words these texts actually say (but perhaps Young Earth Creationists will claim this would be to read the text too literally).

The first step in reading any text is understanding the context. This includes not only where the passage is in relation to the whole, but the other writings of its day. In this case, other Ancient Near Eastern accounts of origins are significant and illuminating. For example, here is the Egyptian depiction of origins:

The most immediate difference is that there are figures of 'persons' embodying every aspect of creation. The god of the land, sky, etc. The Hebrew account is unique in excluding these personifications or any plurality of deities. There are, of course, other differences, but it is important to also notice the similarities. The same basic form remains with a flat earth, a sky being held up with sun, moon, and stars attached to it with waters above being held back. For a more thorough account of these similarities as well as one of the other Christian interpretations of the Genesis 1 text, read John Walton author of 'The Lost world of Genesis One." I will also post his online presentation in a separate post.