 |
| photo courtesy of www.freeimages.com |
Many modern Christian leaders, pastors, and theologians seem to struggle with understanding the first chapter of Genesis. They offer various possible interpretations of the text. Among the many interpretations of the creation story are the following suggestions: the day-age theory, the gap-theory, the progressive creation theory, the framework hypothesis, the cosmic temple theory, the theistic evolution theory, etc. Oddly, it seems the only interpretation of the creation account that is not taken seriously by many Christian leaders is the straightforward, plain understanding of the text. What I mean is that all options seem to be on the table except for taking the text at face-value as speaking of six literal, twenty-four hour days of creation.
Why does there seem to be so much confusion about what the Bible has to say about creation in Genesis? Is it because the text is ambiguous? Hardly. Many of those who espouse interpretations other than the six literal, twenty-four hour days of creation view (hereafter referred to as the "literal" view) admit that the text's plain meaning is that God created everything in six consecutive, regular, solar days. For example, Gleason Archer, a well respected Christian theologian who believed in the day-age theory, stated:
"From a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression would seem to be that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-hour days." [1]Even non-believers, such as the atheist Isaac Asimov, recognize that the author of the creation account in Genesis clearly intended the story to be understood as literal. [2] For more on Asimov, see my 4-part series by clicking here. Given the fact that both Christian and non-Christian scholars agree that the literal interpretation is the way the text reads, then the conclusion can be drawn that the reason many Christian theologians are confused as to how to understand Genesis 1 cannot be blamed on the text itself. Taking the text at face-value leads to the understanding that the whole creation process was accomplished by God in six real days.
We don't have to guess why so many have opted for views other than the literal one, even though the literal view is the one derived from a normal reading of the text. The reason is not because the text doesn't make sense, but rather because many scientists say that the universe is around 15 billion years old. In the previously mentioned article, Dr. Mortenson continued quoting Gleason Archer:
"...this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago." [3]Here we see Archer's motivation for not believing the straightforward language of Genesis 1. He was motivated to disregard the literal interpretation of the text, not because of an exegetical study of the text itself, but rather because of his faith in so-called scientific research that says that the earth is billions of years old.
A belief that the universe is billions of years old is clearly at odds with the literal view of the Bible's creation story in Genesis. Those Christians who want to believe the Bible and billions of years are in a dilemma. To understand the Genesis creation narrative in a literal way is not compatible with so-called science, therefore, rather than scrap the creation story all together, many seek a compromise position, one that allows for billions of years to be read into Genesis. Of course, this requires that the creation account not be taken in its literal sense, thus the multiple alternate views on how to interpret Genesis 1.
Many Christians have bought into the idea that there is a conflict between "science" and Genesis. They think that the universe has been proven scientifically to be billions of years old. They also understand that Genesis plainly states as historical fact that God created the universe in 6 literal consecutive days. Unfortunately, they take the word of fallible man over the infallible word of God. Instead of starting with the Scripture and then verifying if the evidence fits the Biblical record, they take the word of men who start with the presupposition that there is no Creator. They fail to recognize the presuppositions upon which a belief in billions of years is based. Unfortunately, many Christian leaders completely ignore the many well-qualified creation scientists with respected credentials who have done outstanding research and investigation and have seen that the evidence supports a literal view of Genesis. You can find such research and articles that support a literal view of Genesis from the scientists at Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.
Please let me know what you think by leaving a comment. You can do so below this article.
Notes:
[1] Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1994, rev. ed.), 196. as quoted by Dr. Terry Mortenson, Why Don't Many Christian Leaders and Scholars Believe Genesis?, May 31, 2010, https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/why-dont-many-christian-leaders-and-scholars-believe-genesis/, accessed on May 23, 2014.
[2] Isaac Asimov, In the Beginning...(New York: Crown Publishers, Inc, 1981), 32.
[3] Mortenson, Why Don't Many Christian Leaders and Scholars Believe Genesis?, https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/why-dont-many-christian-leaders-and-scholars-believe-genesis/, accessed on May 23, 2014.