CHAPTER 2. THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION

Genesis 1:31. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

There has been more debate over the first chapter of Genesis than any other chapter in the

Bible. How could the sun, which was supposedly created on the fourth day, have been created

after the plants on the third day when everyone knows that plants need the sun in order to live?

And, if there was no sun until the fourth day, how could there have been an “evening and

morning” in the first three days? Non-Christians ask: If Genesis 1 is so scientifically inaccurate

in these matters, shouldn’t it be viewed as an ancient myth rather than the revealed Word of

God?

Because Genesis 1 is one of the main stumbling blocks to belief for non-Christians, it is

therefore one of the main apologetic issues of the Christian church. As such, there have been

numerous attempts by Christian scholars and theologians to try and explain how this chapter fits

with modern science. The main issue of debate concerns the “days” of Genesis 1. Are these

“days” to be taken as literal 24-hour days, are they to be taken for a longer period of time (as in

Ps. 90:4, a day is like a thousand years…), or are they to be taken metaphorically (as in Joel 2:1,

the day of the Lord)? Unlike English, Hebrew has no word other than yôm (day) to denote a long

time span. Therefore yôm can be used literally to mean a 24 hour day (as considered by the

Hebrews, from sunset of one day to sunset of the next day), or it can be used figuratively.

Although the Christian views of Genesis 1 have been many and varied over the centuries,

they usually fall into one of four main categories:

CHRISTIAN NON-CHRISTIAN 24-hour day view “Gap theory” view Day-Age

(concordist) viewLiterary

(framework) view Mythological view

1

Twenty Four-Hour Day View

This view states that the days of Genesis are literal 24-hour days, with each day marked

by an evening and morning. The 24-hour view is also called the “Creation Science” or “Young-

Earth Creationist” view, and is the theological position most popular with evangelical Christians.

Some churches or Christian institutions even have Young-Earth Creationism incorporated into

their constitutions and by-laws or make it a faith requirement for membership.1

Box 2.1: 24 HOUR-DAY VIEW

VIEW: The days of Genesis are literal, 24-hour days marked by evenings and mornings PROS CONS

(1) Traditional view of church for centuries. Wasn’t until 18th-20th century science that this view was questioned.

(1) Goes against the findings of science. Astronomy: universe is 13.7 billion years old Geology: planet Earth is 4.6 billion years old Anthropology: the human fossil record.

(2) Plainest and most straightforward reading of the text.

(2) Interpretation seems internally conflicting; e.g., if the sun was not made until the 4th day, how can there have been a morning and evening on the 1st 3 days?

(3) Many OT and Hebrew scholars interpret Gen. 1 in this way.

(3) Many other highly reputable Bible scholars favor a long-day interpretation.

(4) Other Bible passages seem to support it: e.g., Ex. 20:11 “For in 6 days the Lord made the heavens and earth…”

(4) Open-ended 7th day; we are still in the Lord’s “day of rest” from creating in Genesis 1. If the 7th day is long, why not the other 6 days?

(5) If you veer from this interpretation you are on a “slippery slope” towards reinterpreting the whole Bible.

(5) Gen. 2:19-20. How could Adam have named all the millions of animals on the 6th day if it was a literal, 24-hour period?

Pros

There are a number of pros to the 24 hour-day interpretation of Genesis 1, all of which

are theological in nature (Box 2.1). This view has been the traditional position of the Christian

church over the centuries, and it became especially cemented in the mind of the church and

common person after the King James Version of the Bible was written in 1611. At that time

Genesis 1 was interpreted literally by almost everyone, and it wasn’t until the 18th-20th Centuries

2

that this interpretation was challenged by the findings of modern science. While traditional

interpretations should not be discarded without ample justification, tradition often proves wrong.

Perhaps the strongest Young-Earth Creationist argument in favor of a 24 hour-day

interpretation is that it is the most straightforward reading of the biblical text. This is one of the

most important principles of hermeneutics: don’t alter the plain sense of the text by messing

around with it. The plain sense of Genesis 1 is “universal” in that it has been understandable to

people throughout the centuries. Without the scientific knowledge that we possess today there

was no alternative but to take Genesis 1 at face value. If our present-day understanding of

science or ancient culture is allowed to alter the plain sense of the text, the danger is that one can

start down the “slippery slope” of naturalism, where people interpret the Bible in any way they

please.

Another important hermeneutic principle is that Scripture must be interpreted with

Scripture. In the case of Genesis 1, other biblical passages such as Exodus 20:11 seem to support

a 24 hour-day interpretation of the word “day”: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,

the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore, the Lord blessed the

Sabbath day, and hallowed it. From a purely theological and hermeneutical viewpoint a 24 hour-

day view of Genesis 1 seems justified, which is why so many Old Testament and Hebrew

scholars have interpreted these passages in this way. However, there are serious objections to this

view – both scientific and theological.

Cons

The main difficulty with the 24 hour-day view is that not only does it imply that Creation

took six literal days, but combined with the chronologies of Genesis (refer to Chapter 3), it

3

implies that the universe and planet Earth are only about 6000 years old. And this interpretation

is in direct conflict with the findings of modern science!

According to the latest findings of astronomy, the universe is around 13-14 billion years

old, not 6000 years old. This age comes from recent cosmic-background microwave radiation

maps (Fig. 2.1), but there are many other independent lines of astronomical evidence that support

a very old universe in the neighborhood of 10-17 billion years. A discussion of this evidence is

beyond the scope and intent of this book; the books of astronomer Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint

of God, The Creator and the Cosmos, and Creation and Time, are recommended to anyone

interested in a Christian apologetics view of this topic.2

Figure 2.1. A high-resolution map of microwave light emitted only 380,000 years after the universe began. This all-sky image indicates that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to about 1%), and is composed of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter, and only 4% atoms. From the NASA web site, 2/19/2003. Corresponding with a 13-14 billion year age for the universe is a 4.5-4.6 billion year age

for planet Earth. This age is also based on many independent lines of evidence, some of which

are discussed in Chapter 3. From anthropological and archeological evidence, the date for early

4

5

hominids (human-like) species goes back about 4-6 million years, and the appearance of modern

Homo sapiens goes back to almost 200,000 years. This last topic will be covered in Chapter 7.

The reaction of Creation Science (24 hour-day view) advocates to the scientific evidence

for an old universe and Earth is either to deny the evidence or to reinterpret it in light of their

6000-year theology. This is no small matter, because in addition to the denial of astronomy,

geology, and anthropology, certain fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, biology,

paleontology, genetics, etc. are also denied. Can all of science be wrong? Can the basic

mechanisms of scientific discovery, on which all of today’s technology is based, be so readily

dismissed? And, can a 24 hour-day position be justified when it is in conflict with an

overwhelming amount of scientific data?

Besides the scientific evidence against the 24 hour-day view, there are also a number of

theological problems with this interpretation. For one thing, the events of Genesis 1 seem to be

internally conflicting. If the sun was not made until the fourth day, how could there have been a

“morning” and an “evening” on the first three days? Do the terms “morning” and “evening” refer

to something other than a daily cycle – should they perhaps be interpreted as representing the

beginnings and endings of longer periods of time?

There is also the problem of the seventh day, where there is no “morning and evening”

statement, and which is open ended and still on-going. On the seventh day, God rested from His

creation work and He is still resting. In Genesis 2:3 the term “day” refers to the entire period of

God’s resting from creating the universe. This “day” began after He completed the creative acts

and extends at least to the return of Christ.3 Therefore, if the seventh “day” is long, why can’t the

other six days also be longer than a 24-hour period?

6

Another clue that the “days” of Genesis 1 might not refer to literal 24-hour days is

Genesis 2:4: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,

in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” The word “generations” comes

from the Hebrew word tôlĕdôt, which pertains to descent over a long time period (i.e., narratives,

records, family histories).4 This verse points back to the preceding text of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis

2:3,5 and thus “generations” implies an extended time period longer than six literal days. This

verse will again be discussed in Chapter 7 as it relates to the story of Adam and Eve.

Gap Theory View

The Gap Theory view was an early 20th Century attempt to reconcile the six days of

Genesis 1 with the accumulating scientific evidence for an old Earth and universe. In essence,

this view envisions an indeterminate “gap” in time between Genesis. 1:1 and 1:2. According to

this view, Gen. 1:1 describes God’s original perfect universe, which could have been created

billions of years ago; Genesis 1:2 describes some undefined catastrophic happening (such as

Satan’s fall from heaven); then Genesis 1:3 describes a re-creation in six literal days about 6000

years ago.

Box 2.2: GAP THEORY VIEW VIEW: Gen.1:1 records the original creation of indeterminate length; Gen. 1:3 records a re-creation in six literal days.

PROS CONS (1) Allows for long astronomical and geologic time.

(1) It is not substantiated by either biblical or scientific evidence; reads too much into the text that’s not there.

(2) Is a compromise between the 24-hour and day-age views.

(2) Verses used to defend it (e.g., Jer. 4:23-26, Is. 24:1) do not refer to creation but to future prophecy.

(3) Popular among Christians during 1st half of 20th century; included in the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909 to 1945.

(3) No longer “popular”. Taken out of the New Scofield Bible.

7

Pros

The main pro to the Gap Theory view is that it allows for long astronomical and

geological ages without sacrificing a literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1 (Box 2.2). This

theory was immensely popular among Christians in the first part of the 20th Century – so popular

that it was favored by the prominent theologian J. Vernon McGee and was included in the

Scofield Reference Bible between 1909 and 1945. It is essentially a compromise view between

the 24 hour-day and Day-Age views.

Cons

The Gap Theory has a number of major difficulties: (1) the biblical verses used to defend

it are taken out of context, (2) the view is so theologically nebulous that a number of variations

unsupported by Scripture have sprung out of it, (3) it was invented to harmonize science with

Scripture and not simply to interpret Scripture as it stands, (4) it is unsupported by either biblical

or scientific evidence, and (5) the theory is not exegetically sound – it simply reads too much

into the biblical text. For example, it takes a very imaginative interpretation of Genesis 1 to put

Satan’s fall between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3. In reality, Scripture does not give the slightest hint as

to the time and place of Satan’s fall, except that Satan was a fallen creature when humankind was

created.6 The other main verses used to defend the Gap Theory (mainly Jer. 4:23-26; Is. 24:1, 18)

do not refer to creation at all, but to future prophecy.

None of the biblical references that supposedly support the Gap Theory even so much as

allude to science, yet great leeway is exercised with fitting theories of fossils and fossil men –

who supposedly belonged to pre-Adamic life – into this view. One variation of the Gap Theory

8

states that pre-Adamites were wiped out before the onset of the events recorded in Genesis 1:2.

In other variations, two different Adams are supposed. There are still a number of variations on

the Gap Theory floating around today. For example, one current variation of it that my brother

heard in Australia went something like the following: the time prior to Adam was the “first

creation,” from Adam onward was the “second creation,” and the time after Christ returns will be

the “third creation.” Operating from a Gap Theory point of view, this variation interprets the

word “window” in Isaiah 24:18 to mean “port hole” because it allows movement from one time

frame to another. Such fanciful interpretations illustrate the main “con” to the Gap Theory:

theological persuasions of any kind can be incorporated into it. This theory became unpopular in

the second half of the 20th Century, and was taken out of the Scofield Bible before 1967 when

the New Scofield Bible excluded it.

Day-Age (Concordist) View

In the Day-Age view the “days” of Genesis are not literal 24-hour days, but six sequential

ages of unspecified, although finite, duration. It is alternatively called the “concordist” view of

Genesis 1 because it is supposedly in agreement (concord) with long periods of time as

determined by astronomy and geology. The Day-Age view is probably second in popularity

today, and is the view favored by many scientists who are Christians.

Pros

The main attraction of the Day-Age view is that it is in agreement with the long periods

of time as determined by astronomy and geology (Box 2.3). In addition, it attempts to fit these

days with geologic “ages” or periods defined by the science of geology. For example, it notes a

9

progressive creative sequence in Genesis 1: the creation of the universe (heavens) and Earth

(Gen. 1:1-2), the creation of light (the sun?) (Day 1; Gen. 1:3), the formation of water vapor in

the atmosphere and liquid water in the seas and on land (Day 2; Gen. 1:6-8), the creation of dry

land in one place (before continental drift?) and the creation of plants (Day 3; Gen. 1:9-12), the

creation of birds and sea creatures (Day 5; Gen.1: 20-22), and the creation of land mammals and

humans (Day 6; Gen. 1: 24-27). In Day 4 the progressive sequence seems to be interrupted by

the insertion of the creation (or re-creation?) of the sun and moon and stars.

Box 2.3: DAY-AGE (CONCORDIST) VIEW VIEW: The days of Genesis 1 are not literal 24-hour days, but six sequential ages of unspecified, but finite, duration.

PROS CONS (1) In agreement (“concord”) with long periods of time as determined by astronomy and geology.

(1) A recent innovation devised to accommodate modern geological and astronomical evidence for an old earth/universe.

(2) Tries to fit “days” with geologic “ages”; view favored by many scientists who are Christians.

(2) View actually doesn’t correlate that well with the fossil record in geology: (a) Reptiles (Day 6) came before birds (Day 5). (b) Fish (Day 5) came before seed-bearing (fruit) land plants (Day 3).

(3) Hebrew word yôm can have more than one meaning.

(3) Dangerous to try and correlate scientific theory with biblical revelation by appeal to verses taken out of context.

In defense of the “days” of Genesis being long periods of time, the Day-Age view uses

the argument that the Hebrew word yôm can have more than one meaning and be used for a long

period of time as well as for a 24-hour day. It also uses verses like Psalm 90:4 to support a long

time span for the Genesis days.

10

Cons

Like the 24 hour-day and Gap Theory views, the Day-Age view has many weaknesses. It

could be argued, as with the Gap Theory, that this view is a recent innovation devised to

accommodate modern science in its ideas of an old Earth/universe. It could also be argued that it

is supported by verses taken out of context. For example, let’s take the phrase “a day is like a

thousand years”in Psalm 90:4 in context and fit it within the passages directly preceding it:

Psalm 90:1-4. Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the

mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Thou turnest man to destruction, and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

These passages, taken together in context, put a different slant on things. The whole idea

of Psalm 90 is that God is eternal and man is mortal. Time to Him is meaningless – a thousand

years are but as yesterday or a watch in the night because He is from everlasting to everlasting.

Seen in this contextual light, Psalm 90:4 does not seem to support the days of Genesis 1 as being

long time periods. Rather, a “thousand years” is used as a hyperbole emphasizing how much

more infinite God is compared to finite man.

This contextual objection is not near as damaging to the Day-Age (concordist) view as

the fact that, when inspected closely, this view is not in good concordance with astronomy or

geology. The sun is presumably created on Day 1 since that is when light appears and there is a

morning and evening; yet, on Day 4 the creation of the sun is seemingly repeated. Most

interpreters credit this “double creation” to the sun and moon and stars becoming visible on the

4th day; i.e., there was some kind of atmospheric cloud cover that obscured these heavenly

bodies, so that from the point of view of the observer on the surface of the Earth they did not

11

appear visible until Day 4. But what observer? Humans were not created until the sixth day. And

only plants were created before the fourth day, and they can’t observe anything.

It is illuminating to compare the Genesis 1 sequence of events with the actual geologic

record. In Genesis 1:11-12 (Day 3), the text indicates that plants were formed (before the sun

was visible), and one might assume that these must have been very early forms of plant life such

as algae that existed in the Archean or Proterozoic Eras of geologic time (refer to Fig. 3.4). But

instead Genesis 1:11 continues: “…and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in

itself…” But according to the geologic record, seed-bearing fruit trees do not appear until the

Cretaceous Period (~100 million years ago) – much, much later than simple plants and also long

after fish appeared in the Ordovician Period (~480 million years ago). Yet, the Genesis text has

fish appearing in Day 5 along with whales (“sea monsters;” Gen. 1:21). In addition, there is a

reversed sequence in the appearance of birds and reptiles. According to the geologic record,

primitive reptiles first appeared in the Mississippian (~340 million years ago), whereas birds

didn’t appear until about the middle Jurassic (~155 million years ago).7 And whales are

mammals which didn’t appear until much later in the Cenozoic Era (~50 million years ago).

When the Genesis 1 “days” are carefully scrutinized with respect to the fossil record, the

correlation is superficial at best.

Furthermore, the Day-Age view is not in concordance with the Mesopotamians’

cosmological worldview when it comes to Day 2. From a supposedly scientific Day-Age view,

the “waters above the firmament” in Genesis 1:7-8 are interpreted to mean the atmosphere, and

the “waters below the firmament” to mean the seas and bodies of water on land. However,as

discussed in Chapter 1, in the cosmological worldview of the Mesopotamians the “firmament”

was the solid dome of the sky, the “waters above the firmament” existed in an immense reservoir

12

above this solid dome, and the “waters below the firmament” were the underground waters of the

netherworld (Fig. 1.1). These are two completely different interpretations of the text. Thus the

Day-Age view appears to be inadequate when considered from Scripture, from the correlation of

science with Scripture, and from the worldview of the author(s) who wrote Genesis.

So far we have examined three views on the six days of Genesis: the Creation Science

view, which takes a strict “literal” interpretation of Genesis but which denies or reinterprets

science in concordance with its preconceptions of Scripture; the Gap Theory view, which

compromises both science and Scripture; and the Day-Age Concordist view, which tries to force-

fit Genesis to conform with the findings of modern science. Now, let’s see what the Literary

view is, and how a worldview approach might help reconcile the differences between Genesis 1

and modern science.

Literary View or Worldview Approach

Few people have heard of the Literary view (also sometimes referred to as the

“framework” view). Although the parallel construction of Genesis 1 has been noted by scholars

for centuries, it wasn’t until Mesopotamian cuneiform texts were deciphered in the late 19th and

early-20th Centuries that the significance of these texts to Genesis 1 became recognized.

In the Literary view, the “days” of Genesis 1 are figurative days, where the divine works

of creation are narrated in topical order rather than in a strict sequential order. The narrative

involves temporality (i.e., it starts “In the beginning” and works towards the creation of humans),

but the narrative style is not constrained by a temporal sequence of events. The most important

aspect of the Literary view is that it maintains that Genesis 1 was written following the

convention and style of literary works prevalent in the ancient Near East about 4000 years ago.

13

One literary convention of the ancient Mesopotamians was to use lots of repetition in

their writing, which repetition included not only words, but also numbers, phrases, and structural

elements such as parallelism. Prime examples of repetition in words, phrases, and structure are

Genesis 1:11-12, 1:27, and 2:1. In addition to using repetition, analogy was often carefully

woven into language.8 Furthermore, in the worldview of the Mesopotamians, language not only

stated facts, it established them. Thus in Genesis 1, when God said “Let there be light,” by this

statement, light was created. The Mesopotamians also believed in the identity and essence

between a name and what it meant, and a being or thing only came into existence once it was

given a name – as in Genesis 2:19 where Adam names all of the animals. In addition, the

Mesopotamians loved to play on words; for example, “adam” (generic humans) in Genesis 1 and

Adam (a specific human) in Genesis 2, and “Peleg” in Genesis 10:25, which name means

“divided” as in “for in his days was the earth divided”. None of this play was gratuitous; it was

the very basis of Mesopotamian intellectual thought.9 This type of thought, or worldview, is

quite foreign to our way of thinking, but needs to be considered when interpreting the book of

Genesis because where the biblical author(s) was “coming from” is foundational to the book.

Symmetry and Harmony of Genesis 1

An important part of the worldview of the ancient Mesopotamians was that harmony and

balance must be maintained in their everyday lives. One way this harmony was achieved was by

using symmetry and parallelism in prosaic writings and by using “good” numbers rather than

“bad” numbers in these texts. A prime example of literary and numerical symmetry in an ancient

Near Eastern text is the first chapter of Genesis.

14

The whole chapter of Genesis 1 is based on a system of numerical harmony.10 Not only is

the number seven fundamental to its main theme (God created the world in six days and rested

on the seventh), but it also serves to determine many of its details. To the Mesopotamians seven

was the number of perfection, and thus the basis of ordered arrangement; also, particular

importance was attached to it in the symbolism of numbers (see Chapter 3). It was considered a

perfect period (unit of time) in which to develop an important work, the action lasting six days

and reaching its conclusion and outcome on the seventh day. It was also customary to divide the

six days of work into three pairs; i.e., into two parallel triads of days. So, a completely

harmonious account of creation, in accord with other ancient examples of similar schemes in the

literature of that time, and using the rules of style in ancient epic poetry and prose narrative of

the ancient Near East, would be the parallel form of symmetry found in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1

the first set of three days represents a general account of creation, while the second triad is a

more-specific account of the first three days (Table 2.1):

Table 2.1. A “literary” interpretation of Genesis 1 Day 1. Light Day 2. “Waters”; sea and heaven Day 3. Earth or land; vegetation Day 4. Light emanating from luminaries (sun, moon, stars)

Day 5. Fish (whales) and fowl Day 6. Land creatures that eat vegetation; man

Day 7. Rest Much debate has revolved around the Genesis 1 topics: (1) Are the days of Genesis long

epochs of time or 24-hour periods? (2) How could the sun have been created on the fourth day

after plants? (3) Does the phrase “after to its kind” refer to the fixity of species and refute

evolution?, and (4) Is modern science in concordance or discordance with the “days” of Genesis

1? But if taken in the proper and intended context of literature written in the ancient Near East of

around 2000 B.C., there is no conflict with any of these topics. The Genesis author was simply

writing in the “politically-correct” cosmogenic and prose-narrative style of that day.11 Thus, the

Genesis 1 text was not meant to represent a sequential order of creation or one that needs to fit

15

with modern science. It was simply the literary way that writers of that day wrote down their

narrative thoughts.

Does this negate the importance or truth of God’s revelation in Genesis 1 to humankind?

Not at all. If you were given a revelation from God, you would type it on your computer in a

style prevalent today, one that reflects your worldview and cultural perspective. That is what the

Genesis author(s) did, and they tried to show their highest respect for God by using the most

sacred language they knew how to create – where every word and phrase was weighed

scrupulously and woven together into a poetic tapestry of harmony and balance. If one takes into

account the literary style and numerological conceptions of the ancient Mesopotamians, then the

dilemmas that arise from a literalist (24 hour-day) or concordist (each day represents a long time

period) view disappear.

An even closer look at Genesis 1 reveals the carefully constructed and intricate harmony

of the original Masoretic Hebrew text in terms of the sacred numbers three and seven. The first

verse of Genesis has seven (7 x 1) Hebrew words in it, and the second verse has 14 (7 x 2)

words (Hebrew is read from left to right):12

Genesis 1:1: `#r<a'(h' taeîw> ~yIm:ßV'h; taeî ~yhi_l{a/ ar"äB' tyviÞarEB. ha’aretz v’et hash’mayim ‘et Elohim bara’ b’reshit the earth and + the heavens (dir obj) God he created In the beginning

Genesis 1:2: > ~Ah+t. ynEåP. -l[; %v,xoßw> Whboêw" ‘Whto’ ht'îy>h' #r<a'ªh'w>

tohum p’ney ‘al v’chosheq v’bohu tohu hay’tah v’ha’aretz deep face upon and darkness & void formless it was & the earth

`~yIM")h; ynEïP. -l[; tp,x,Þr:m. ~yhiêl{a/ x:Wråw hamayim p’ney ‘al m’rachefet Elohim v’ruach the waters face upon hovered God & Spirit (of)

16

After the introductory verse (v. 1), the section is divided into seven paragraphs, each of

which pertains to one of the seven days. Each of the three nouns that occur in the first verse

(“God,” “heavens,” and “earth”) is repeated throughout the chapter a multiple of seven times:

“God” occurs 35 (7 x 5) times, “earth” is found 21 (7 x 3) times, and “heavens” appears 21 (7 x

3) times. Each verse after the first contains three pronouncements that emphasize God’s concern

for man’s welfare (three being the number of emphasis), namely the type phrases ‘Let us make

man’, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’, and ‘Behold I have given you every plant yielding seed’. Thus,

there is a series of seven corresponding dicta of triads (threes). The terms “light” and “day” are

found seven times in the first paragraph, and there are seven references to “light” in the fourth

(parallel) passage. “Water” is mentioned seven times in paragraphs two and three; “beasts” seven

times in parallel paragraphs five and six; the expression “it was good” appears seven times – the

seventh time “very good” for emphasis, etc. To suppose that all of this is a mere coincidence is

not possible. Unquestionably, the repetitions were introduced for the sake of parallelism in

accordance with the customary stylistic convention of that day.13 The text was purposely

constructed this way by the biblical author(s) in order to attain a sacred symmetry and harmony

commensurate with the worldview of the ancient Mesopotamians.

Chapter 1 of Genesis is not the only section of Genesis to display numerical repetition

and symmetry based on the number seven. It also applies to the texts of the Garden of Eden, Cain

and Abel, and Noah and the Flood.14 This consistency gives a remarkable unity to the Genesis

stories, for whoever wrote Genesis (the authorship of Genesis will be discussed at the end of this

chapter). Or, as stated by the Hebrew scholar Cassuto: “This numerical symmetry is, as it were,

the golden thread that binds together all the parts of the section and serves as a convincing proof

of its unity”.15

17

Pros

The pros and cons of the literary view are shown in Box 2.4. One of the main “pros” has

just been discussed – the Literary view (a worldview approach) places Genesis 1 into a historical

framework by considering the epic style of writing used in Mesopotamian literary texts of about

2000-1500 B.C.

Box 2.4: LITERARY VIEW VIEW: The days of Genesis 1 are figurative days, where the divine works of creation are narrated in topical order rather than in sequential order, and where the literary style of that time was followed.

PROS CONS (1) Since “day”, “morning” and “evening” are figurative, they can be 24-hr or longer periods.

(1) Not traditional “literal” rendering of the church; not held by the church before ~1900.

(2) Answers the 4th day sun and other problems: text to be taken topically not sequentially.

(2) A recent interpretation meant to harmonize scripture with science.

(3) Puts Gen. 1 into a real historical context; fits the “epic” style of writing used in literary texts of 2000 BC Mesopotamia; division into 7 units, parallelism and symmetry of Gen. 1 typical of such texts.

(3) Not the most easy, straightforward reading of the text.

(4) Carefully constructed text using symmetry and harmony of numbers and words.

(4) Topical framework goes against both the 24-hour view and Day-age views, which have the order of narration of Gen. 1 as time-sequential.

(5) Since it is a “model” of the workweek, it fits with Ex. 20:11.

(5) Takes one down the “slippery slope” of making selected sections of the Bible figurative rather than literal.

The fact that the Literary view is topical is extremely important when it comes to the

supposed conflict between Genesis 1 and modern science. The problem of the fourth day

disappears because the structure of the narrative is parallel, not sequential. Note this parallelism

in Table 2.1. The luminaries (sun, moon, stars) in Day 4 are specific to the general topic of light

in Day 1. Therefore, the Genesis author was not trying to imply that the sun was formed after

plants – we just interpret the text this way from our Western, linear, cause-and-effect worldview.

18

But that was not the biblical authors’ worldview. Their mindset was to impose a sacred

symmetry on the text.

Now, look at the next two columns in Table 2.1. Here, all of the supposed geologic

objections disappear. Why are “fish” and “whales” grouped together, when fish geologically

appeared in the Devonian and whales in the Cenozoic? Because both fish and whales (Day 5) are

specific to “waters” in Day 2. No time sequence is implied by these verses. The same applies to

“fowl” and “heaven”. Birds fly in the heavens and therefore they belong in Day 5 which is

specific and parallel to Day 2. The parallelism of Day 3 and 6 is the same. Land creatures (Day

6) are specific to earth (eretz, or dry land), and these are land mammals (e.g., cattle; Gen. 1:24)

that eat vegetation (Day 3). Such parallelism was the way the minds of ancient scribes – from

their literary and worldview perspective – compartmentalized and organized material to be

written into a narrative text.

A figurative rather than an exact “literal” interpretation of the Genesis 1 text is also

theologically important. The words “day”, “morning”, and “evening”, taken figuratively, could

apply either to a 24-hour period or to a longer period of time. Take your pick, because it didn’t

matter to the biblical author(s). From their worldview, the perfect period of time in which to

develop a work was considered to be seven days – whether literal days or figurative days. This

does not mean that the writer made up the story of Creation, only that he fit the divinely revealed

story into the framework of conventional epic prose prevalent at that time. And, since the

language is figurative, then passages like Exodus 20:1 can be theologically reconciled with

Genesis 1. Metaphorically we are to model our human work week after the figurative work week

of Genesis 1, working six days and resting on the seventh.

19

Cons

Let’s now discuss the “cons” in Box 2.4, in the order they appear there. For each of these

cons, I will argue to the contrary from a worldview approach.

Con #1. Not the traditional rendering of the church. I would argue: Genesis 1 was not

written by or for the church. It was written by and for people of 4000 years ago with a pre-

scientific worldview, before the Christian church existed.

Con #2. Recent interpretation of the text. I would argue: This interpretation has come

about within the last 50-70 years, coincident with the discovery of cuneiform texts that reveal the

world of the ancient Mesopotamians. But the original intent of the text has not changed at all,

since it was never intended to teach science but to teach God as Creator.

Con #3. Not the most straightforward rendering of the text. I would argue: Not to us, but

perhaps to the Mesopotamians. In their worldview, the way Genesis 1 was written down was the

most honorable and straightforward way to write a sacred text.

Con #4. Non-sequential order to the text. I would argue: The text was not meant to be a

sequential account of creation. It was written in the repetitive, parallel-construction, literary

format of that day, following the rules of narrative style. The “days” of Genesis represent

episodes of divine creativity stated in a literary framework that provides a teleological order

rather than a chronological or causal order.

Con #5. Non-literal interpretation of the text. I would argue: It is ironic that a figurative

interpretation of Genesis 1 may be more literal than the so-called “literal” 24-hour day view

because that is how the original author meant it to be. Or, as Conrad Hyers aptly put it:

“Unwittingly, ‘literal’ or ‘concordist’ views are secular rather than sacred interpretations of the

text.”16 To faithfully interpret Genesis is to be faithful to what it really means as it was originally

20

written, not to what people living in a later time, or coming from a different worldview, desire it

to be.

Who Was the Genesis Author(s) and When Was Genesis Written?

All through Chapter 1 and this chapter I have referred to the Genesis author or authors of

about 2500-1500 B. C., which reference is sure to disturb evangelical Christians and critical

biblical scholars alike. Doesn’t this contradict the traditional view that Moses was the sole author

of Genesis? And what about the “JEDP” literary-critical doctrines of Wellhausen and others?

The numerical symmetry and harmony displayed by the Genesis text, as discussed in this

chapter, and the numerological discussions of the next chapter (Chapter 3), relate to the

authorship and time of writing of Genesis and thus will be briefly covered in this section.

Literary-Critical Method

In 1878 a German by the name of Julius Wellhausen performed a critical source analysis

of Genesis and came up with a hypothesis that the book was written by four different authors

(sources) who had lived during the Israelite monarchy (800-600 B.C.) rather than before or

during the patriarchal period.17 These four main sources to the text of Genesis are referred to as

Yahwistic (J), Elohistic (E), Deuteronomy (D), and Priestly (P). The main tenant of the Literary-

Critical Method is that different documents underlie the narrative of Genesis, and that Genesis is

a synthesis of fragments culled from various sources and written down long after Moses lived.

Since Wellhausen, there have been many modifications, additions, and objections to the literary-

critical approach, with the date of writing of some sections of Genesis even being extended to as

late as the 5th Century B.C., during and after the Babylonian exile.

21

Most biblical commentators since Wellhausen have accepted his source analysis, either in

whole or in part. An example of a partial acceptance of a literary-critical approach is that of

Westermann:18 “The texts of the patriarchal narratives show clear signs of a gradual growth over

a long period of time. The first outlines were preserved along the path which they have traveled

across the centuries and which extends from the patriarchal period down to the monarchy in

Israel”. Others who totally accept the Wellhausen hypothesis think that writers in the period of

the monarchy invented the patriarchs as well as the stories about them. Typical of this view is

that of Maidman:19 “The world of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was conceived in the minds of the

great writers of Israel.” Archeology can support the antiquity of some aspects of patriarchal

traditions),20 but it can’t prove if or when the patriarchs lived. There is no known archeological

evidence that confirms the existence of the patriarchs, and the Bible is the only known document

that mentions them.

The numerical symmetry and harmony of the Genesis text, as discussed in this chapter,

and the numerology of the Mesopotamians discussed in the next chapter, are in conflict with a

supposed multiple, completely late-stage authorship for Genesis:

(1) How could multiple authors, who lived at different times during the Israelite

monarchy or later, have created such a literally and numerically harmonious text consistent

throughout the Genesis 1, Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, and Noah stories?

(2) If Genesis was created at a much later time, why does the repetitive, parallel, and

colophon literary form of the Genesis text conform to the epic narrative style of ancient

Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets?

(3) The exaggerated patriarchal ages in Genesis are based on the sexagesimal (base-60)

system of the ancient Sumerians (Table 3.2) – not on the decimal system used by the Israelites

22

during the time of the monarchy. Mathematics based on the sexagesimal system started in

Mesopotamia about 3200 B.C. and reached its apex in the Old Bablylonian Period around 1800-

1600 B.C.21 Then it waned until the Babylonians were engulfed by the Assyrians in the 7th

Century B.C. If the Hebrews had adopted a decimal system in Egypt (Table 3.1), why would

Hebrew scribes during the monarchy or exile have used a sexagesimal numbering system unless

that system was already embedded in their sacred historical documents? The Mesopotamians

were the only known ancient culture to have used a sexagesimal system in addition to a decimal

system.22

(4) The long, exaggerated, “sacred” ages of the patriarchs (see Chapter 3) are typical of

texts for the ancient Near East, but by the time of Solomon and David (the monarchy), “real”

(numerical) or preferred numbers were being used, not numerological numbers (Table 3.1). For

example, the 600-year age of Noah in Genesis 7:6 reflects the sexagesimal (60 x 10) system of

the ancient Sumerians where numbers had sacred meanings. It does not reflect the numerical

ages used by the time of the monarchy.

(5) “Historical memories” are preserved in the Genesis text. Sometimes these are “old”

words having an ancient Sumerian origin, and sometimes they are geographical names and

places that attest to the time of writing of the text. Some of these “historical memories” will be

mentioned throughout the following chapters.

All of the above reasons support an original Genesis text (or texts) written sometime after

the invention of narrative writing (~2500-2000 B.C.), and/or during the patriarchal period

(~2000-1500 B.C.), not during the Israelite monarchy, as claimed by Wellhausen and others.

So what about the Wellhausen hypothesis, which has been followed by scores of

theologians since it was proposed over a hundred years ago? The worldview approach agrees

23

with the judgment of Kenneth Kitchen, in his Reliability of the Old Testament: “Entirely false is

the nineteenth-century “evolutionary” scheme (of Wellhausen)…Pumped into generations of

students, both future and practicing biblicists, it is and (alas!) always was, pure unadultrated

fantasy.”23 Wellhausen’s subjective assessment of the Hebrew text simply does not jive with real

history that can be tested.

Moses, the Historian Author of Genesis?

While Moses is the traditional author of Genesis, this authorship is only assumed.

Various Old Testament books ascribe the “books of the law” (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,

Deuteronomy) to Moses (e.g., Js. 23:6, 1 Ki 2:3), and so does Jesus in the New Testament (Mk.

12:26). But nowhere in the Bible is Moses specifically identified as being the author of Genesis.

However, it is not unreasonable to theorize that Moses was the author of Genesis since he was

well educated in Egypt (Acts 7:22) and perfectly able to translate and/or write such a text. The

important question is: Did God give the entire narrative of Genesis to Moses through revelation,

or was Moses the historian author or compiler of Genesis?

Consider the following hypothetical scenario. The earliest stories in Genesis (the Creation

and the Flood) must have been handed down by word of mouth for generations because the

writing of cuneiform narrative texts did not occur until about 2500 B.C., or some 400 to 500

years after the Flood.24 These oral versions would have already reflected an ancient Near Eastern

worldview.25 After narrative writing was invented, these stories could have become inscribed on

cuneiform tablets by the scribal descendants of Noah and passed down to Abraham who lived

about 2000 B.C. Abraham could have then taken this Genesis account with him when he went to

Canaan – either in oral form or, more likely, in written form since the colophon “This is the book

24

of the generations of Adam” (Gen. 5:1) implies a written genealogy.26 Historical and

geographical information, as well as old words that had disappeared from the living language

before the time of Moses, attest to these stories being handed down from the earliest times.27

Abraham passed on family tradition to Isaac; Isaac passed part of this plus family tradition of his

father to Jacob; Jacob passed these and his own experiences on to Joseph and his brothers; and

they in turn maintained an ongoing tradition (written, oral, or both) that was eventually passed

down the patriarchal line to Moses, who translated and compiled these stories into a single

chronological narrative sometime between the 15th and 13th Centuries B.C.28 Later, during the

time of the Israelite monarchy or exile (~800-600 B.C.), redactor scribes could have edited the

Genesis text in order to put it into a smooth, effective, and understandable literary form suitable

for their generation. This editing could have included “tidbits” of information that were known

by this later time, superimposed over the more basic ancient text. At this time the text would

have also been converted by scribes into Classical Masoretic Hebrew – a form of the Hebrew

language that did not even exist in the time of Moses.29 Thus, all of these elements probably

figure into the authorship of Genesis, so each must be taken into account in order to understand

the book fully. Or, as stated in the basic premise of the worldview approach in Chapter 1:

archeological evidence from the time of the biblical authors needs to be considered when

evaluating the “original” meaning of the text.

Important Lessons To Be Learned From Genesis 1

In overview, I would like to state what I feel are the most important general lessons to be

learned from Genesis 1.

25

(1) Genesis 1 was not written to teach astronomy, geology, or biology. It was written to

show man’s relationship to the Creator God and man’s unique status in God’s divine program.

Too much emphasis on either a scientific or “literal” reading of Genesis 1 takes away from this

all-important truth.

(2) God revealed his creation story to a group of people who were surrounded by nations

practicing animism and polytheism, religions based on mythology. The whole chapter of Genesis

1 has a strong thrust against such mythology; i.e., God made the sun and moon – they are not to

be worshiped, God is. We are also made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) and therefore are not to

worship images of wood and stone but the living God, who is Creator of heaven and earth.

(3) The six days of Genesis need to be interpreted from a Near Eastern, 2500-1500 B.C.

worldview, not from a 17th Century A.D. European “King James” worldview or a 21st Century

A.D. scientific worldview. When this is done, then the many perceived science-Scripture

conflicts of Genesis 1, which have been debated over the centuries, begin to be reconciled.

NOTES

1D. F. Siemens, “Considering the Probabilities of Creation and Evolution,” Perspectives on

Science and Christian Faith 52, no. 3 (2000) 194-199.

2H. Ross, The Fingerprint of God (Orange: Promise Publishing, 1989) 233 p.; H. Ross, The

Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993) 185 p.; H. Ross, Creation and

Time (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994) 187 p.

3G. L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 62.

4D. Fischer, “Young-Earth Creationism: a Literal Mistake,” Perspectives on Science and

Christian Faith 55, no. 4 (2003) 224; R. K. Harrison, “From Adam to Noah: a

26

Reconsideration of the Antediluvian Patriarchs Ages,” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 37 (1994) 161-168.

5P. J. Wiseman, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis – A Case for Literary Unity (New

York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985) 17; H. F. Blank, “On the Structure of Genesis,”

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, no. 1 (2004) 74.

6P. P. T. Pun, Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict? (Grand Rapids: Zonderman, 1982)

312.

7R. T. Bakker, The Dinosaur Heresies (New York: Zebra Books, 1986) p. 304.

8 J. M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1995)

1818.

9 J. M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1995)

1819.

10U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, pt. 1, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1972)

translated from Hebrew by Israel Abrahams, 12-17; C. A. Hill, “Making Sense of the

Numbers of Genesis,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55, no. 4 (2003) 246-247.

11C. Hyers, “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmogenic, Yes; Scientific, No,” Journal of the

American Scientific Affiliation 36, no. 4 (1984) 212; P. H. Seely, “The First Four Days of

Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context,” Perspectives on Science and

Christian Faith 49, no. 2 (1997) 85-95.

12Greg Moss provided the Hebrew text for Gen. 1:1-2.

13U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, pt. 2 (Jerusaleum: Magnes Press, 1972)

translated from Hebrew by Israel Abrahams, 38.

27

14U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, pt. 1, (Jerusaleum: Magnes Press, 1972)

translated from Hebrew by Israel Abrahams, 94, 192; pt. 2, 32-33.

15U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, pt. 1, (Jerusaleum: Magnes Press, 1972)

translated from Hebrew by Israel Abrahams, 15.

16C. Hyers, “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmogenic, Yes; Scientific, No,” Journal of the

American Scientific Affiliation 36, no. 4 (1984) 209, 212.

17J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Cleveland: Meridan Books,

1957), translated from the original 1878 German version.

18C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House,

1986), p. 37.

19M. P. Maidman, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Meet Newton, Darwin, and Wellhausen,” Biblical

Archeology Review 32, no. 3 (2006) 58-64.

20R. S. Hendel, “Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Biblical Archeology

Review 21, no. 4 (1995), 52-57, 70-74; J. A. Hoffmeier, “Out of Egypt,” Biblical Archeology

Review 33, no. 1 (2007), 30-41.

21J. Hoyrup, “Sumerian Origin of Mathematics,” eds. J. Fauvel and J. Gray, The History of

Mathematics (New York: MacMillian Education Ltd. (1987) 24-25.

22G. Sarton, “Decimal Systems Early and Late,” Osiris 9 (1950) 582.

23K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003), 487.

24C. A. Hill, “A Time and Place for Noah,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53, no.

1 (2001) 34-35.

25P. Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005) 51.

28

26U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, pt.1, (Jerusaleum: Magnes Press, 1972)

translated from Hebrew by Israel Abrahams, 273.

27C. K. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1975) 32; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, pt. 2 (Magnes Press,

Jerusaleum, 1972), translated from Hebrew by Israel Abrahams, 252.

28K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003) 366-

367.

29D. C. Harlow, “The Genesis Creation Accounts,” Paper given at the Origins Sympsoium,

Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, March 13-14, 2006.